Carbon Credits... I don't really get it [Archive]

DRBUZZ0

28th September 2007, 11:51 PM

So what's the deal with crabon credits which supposedly those like Gore say he buys and thus offsets the carbon he produces.

Apparently it has something to do with companies or organizations which are allowed to release carbon selling it when they don't need to fufill their maximum limit? I'm a bit confused as to how that actually helps anything. Since most companies and people spew out carbon with no concern for credits.

It also doesn't necessarly reduce it anywhere. I suppose the idea is the encourage reduction by selling the CO2 you are not releasing? Or rather the right to it? Seems shakey. Honestly, I never understood it.

The best I can figure for it helping is that it's like me standing out on the street with a pile of coal yelling "SEE THIS? SEE THIS COAL? Well I'm going to BURN it. That's right. Not even going to use the energy for anything good. That's five hundred pounds of coal. And it's not anthracite either. Nope this is dirty brown coal; full of sulphur and all carbon with no hydrogenation. Why? BECAUSE I'm CRAZY LIKE THAT! I'm gona do it! I swear I'm going do it. I'm gona burn this coal unless you give me fifty dollars. Nobody gives me fifty dollars in the next ten minutes I'm gona light up this big 'ole dirty pile of coal"

GodMark2

29th September 2007, 02:25 AM

The best I can figure for it helping is that it's like me standing out on the street with a pile of coal yelling "SEE THIS? SEE THIS COAL? Well I'm going to BURN it. That's right. Not even going to use the energy for anything good. That's five hundred pounds of coal. And it's not anthracite either. Nope this is dirty brown coal; full of sulphur and all carbon with no hydrogenation. Why? BECAUSE I'm CRAZY LIKE THAT! I'm gona do it! I swear I'm going do it. I'm gona burn this coal unless you give me fifty dollars. Nobody gives me fifty dollars in the next ten minutes I'm gona light up this big 'ole dirty pile of coal"

Only if your business prior to this point was burning the coal for no purpose.

Other than that, you seem to understand the system. Each country(or business, or person, depending on the system) gets a certain amount of carbon they can release. If they don't release that much, they can sell that excess capacity to some country that has released (or is expecting to release) more than their allotment.

The big problem is how much to allot to each country. To reduce carbon production, the allotment must be set below current levels. If we set the allotment to below current levels, then low-income developing countries will not be able to increase their production of goods, or even maintain current production of goods, so they will resist those limits. If they resist, either someone has to enforce compliance, or they simply won't comply.

The current 'developed' countries all got to go through a phase of development with unrestrained production, which allowed them to become the production powerhouses they are, and to have the excess capacity that implementing 'low carbon' solutions can be explored. Currently developing countries don't see a way to get to the 'developed' state without going through the same limitless phase. At least, not an easy way.

Carbon credits like the ones proposed by the Kyoto Protocols are one attempt to alleviate this, by allowing developing countries to continue increasing their emissions, and providing a economic benefit for countries that decrease their emissions. If everything works perfectly, the total carbon isn't lowered, but at least it's not growing.

If everything works perfectly...

Henners

29th September 2007, 02:44 AM

The best way to deal with CO2 is to turn it back into pure carbon and bury it in a deep hole.

PixyMisa

29th September 2007, 04:00 AM

Or build more libraries.

mhaze

29th September 2007, 07:54 AM

plumjam

29th September 2007, 08:25 AM

yeah, sounds like a massive scam to me

DRBUZZ0

29th September 2007, 09:10 AM

TragicMonkey

29th September 2007, 09:36 AM

Whenever I hear "carbon credit" I picture myself at the grocery checkout line, handing over a pile of powdered graphite instead of swiping my credit card. "It's okay," I assure the bewildered checkout lady. "It's carbon credit."

boooeee

29th September 2007, 11:03 AM

There is a difference between carbon offsets and carbon credits.

Carbon credits refer to the trading system created under the Kyoto protocol. As I understand it, each country is allotted a specific amount of carbon that they are allowed to emit. The rights to emit that carbon are then sold on the open market to industries that emit carbon. The advantage of the scheme is that it achieves a reduction in carbon emissions with the least amount of economic pain.

Carbon offsets are voluntary. These are the things that Al Gore and Coldplay buy to offset the carbon emitted by their mansions, planes, world tours, etc. I think it usually involves planting trees to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. They're basically a "feel good" measure which has little to no impact on anything really (except the coffers of the companies selling these offsets). If you're really concerned about helping Bangladeshis that would be hurt by rising sea levels due to global warming, your dollar will go much further by donating money to the Bangladeshis now, rather than purchasing a carbon offset that has a dubious impact on the future.

mhaze

29th September 2007, 11:11 AM

What if people just start buying a few tons of lithium hydroxide, manufactured in a carbon-neutral manner (such as by a nuclear, wind or solar powered chemical synthesis plant)?

I suppose that way there'd be no doubt you're soaking up more CO2 than you produce.
If carbon offsets and carbon credits were not a scam, then anyone investing in a company that is building new nuclear plants should be handed them.

Oh? That does not happen? Why?

Safe-Keeper

29th September 2007, 11:16 AM

Carbon credits refer to the trading system created under the Kyoto protocol. As I understand it, each country is allotted a specific amount of carbon that they are allowed to emit. The rights to emit that carbon are then sold on the open market to industries that emit carbon. The advantage of the scheme is that it achieves a reduction in carbon emissions with the least amount of economic pain.Exactly. It's aimed to reduce the total amount of Co2 emitted globally.

Picture yourself buying a carpet and finding out it's made by East Asian child labour. You feel bad about this, so you head down to Free the Children and donate to their program to end child labour. That's pretty much the principle of Carbon offsets.

Geek Goddess

29th September 2007, 02:39 PM

The best way to deal with CO2 is to turn it back into pure carbon and bury it in a deep hole. And just how to do you think you can economically convert CO2 in to pure carbon and oxygen? I'd be interested in the technology. Pure CO2 has no Btu value - it doesn't burn. It can be compressed and stored underground, if you have a reservoir and can expend the energy to compress it from near-atmospheric pressure back up to whatever the formation pressure is.

yeah, sounds like a massive scam to me

On a smaller scale - when I permit a new compressor station, for instance, one of the many permits I must obtain is the air permit. The theoretical amount of emissions is calculated based on the specific equipment selected, as well as the fuel value for that installation. There are limits on specific pollutants and/or emissions. For instance, for compressors, they must be capable of achieving under 0.02 gr/hr of NOx. If you are granted the permit and allowed to build your station, you have a set tons/year of allowable emissions for that site, and your fees are based on that tonnage. However, if in the next county, you happen to shut down some inefficient compressors that have been running for 20 years, you can claim that site's emission reduction against the new emissions from the more efficient site. If your facilities are in non-attainment areas and you are able to eliminate emissions, you get credit for that.

Even though they are more expensive, I've been using electric-driven compressors in some locations. First, they reduce emissions, and therefore fees, at the location. Second, they have lower maintenance costs even if the upfront cost is much more expensive. (Although, economically, I can't justify the more expensive equipment on *only* reduced maintenance, as it doesn't pay out). And frequently, the amount of electricity needed to run a 3500 HP compressor is beyond the ability of the power companies and co-ops that service most rural areas, so new power lines and often a new sub-station, must be built. However, because the power company is burning some sort of fuel to generate the power in the first place, which you are THEN using to power a compressor, there is some inefficiency built in. You would use less gas to directly run the compressor than you use in first generating power, and then using the power to run the compressor. Line losses, and the laws of thermodynamics tend to get in the way of perfect efficiency. What you have then done is move the emissions from the compressor station to the power generation location, which may not be using as clean as a fuel. I use natural gas to run the engines, but the power company might be burning coal, which has a higher carbon emission. NOx causes more health problems that CO2, which is why it is regulated carefully.

mhaze

29th September 2007, 03:24 PM

And just how to do you think you can economically convert CO2 in to pure carbon and oxygen? I'd be interested in the technology. Pure CO2 has no Btu value - it doesn't burn. It can be compressed and stored underground,

A bit of caution is in order. The "carbon sequestration" plans, as outlined in the appendix to the IPPC reports, are essentially science fiction. There is no such industrial equipment.

As far as Kyoto type plans, they have been studied quite a bit and the results seem pretty negative (as far as do they do what they were allegedly implemented to do)

Pielke, Roger Jr., 2007 Science Direct "Mistreatment of the economic impacts (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2543-2007.21.pdf) of extreme events in the Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change."
(the Stern Report) "overestimates propagate through the report's estimate of future global losses...a more comprehensive analysis underscores the importance of adaptation in any comprehensive portfolio of responses"

Nordhaus 2007 (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf) The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy

Nordhaus establishes that for $13 trillion in economic benefits from abating CO2 (using some middle of the road presumptions about the effects of CO2) to cost $17 trillion. Therefore, he argues that doing nothing or doing careful adaptive strategies would be better on a cost benefits basis than massive implementation of Kyoto type plans.

Nordhaus, 2007 (http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/stern_050307.pdf) - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
"....the (Stern) Review's unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that are consistent with today's marketplace real interest rates and savings rates.....Hence the central questions about global warming policy - how much, how fast, and how costly - remain open. The (Stern) Review informs but does not answer these fundamental questions.

Another study in Britian sums it up -

A study of British current programs shows the following (Short story, spending 11.7B pounds, revenue from "green taxes 21.9B pounds).

The 'social cost of CO2 emissions' is the monetary cost to society to reduce emissions to a level that would stop the man-made contribution to global warming and climate change. A number of reports have been produced that estimate this cost. The TaxPayers' Alliance takes takes four of these reports and calculates the average cost across these reports. The four reports are: Nordhaus (2007), IPCC (2007), Tol (2005), Stern (2006).

Based on the CO2 emissions for 2005 (654 million tonnes) the social costs for CO2 are: £2.7 billion (Nordhaus), £4.3 billion (IPCC), £9.1 billion (Tol) and £30.5 billion (Stern). The average of these reports is £11.7 billion. The revenue generated by green taxes for 2005-6 (less spending on roads) was £21.9 billion. Depending on whether one takes the cost taken by Stern or the other three reports, the actual revenue is either outrageously over-the-top or greatly understated.

Geek Goddess

29th September 2007, 05:37 PM

A bit of caution is in order. The "carbon sequestration" plans, as outlined in the appendix to the IPPC reports, are essentially science fiction. There is no such industrial equipment.

I knew that ;)

mhaze

29th September 2007, 06:58 PM

I knew that ;)

Figured you did, not many people (well, around here at least) can talk intelligently about industrial equipment.:)

geni

29th September 2007, 07:14 PM

If carbon offsets and carbon credits were not a scam, then anyone investing in a company that is building new nuclear plants should be handed them.

Oh? That does not happen? Why?

A number of reasons.

First building nuclear plants kicks out a fair amount of CO2.

Second it is unusal to make that kind of payment to shareholders it's complex and messy. From the point of view the the goverment it makes far more sense to give the credits to the company which can then sell them on and use the money to build the plant.

Third a startup building nuclear plants isn't at this time produceing any CO2 however once they start to operate their customers who swich from non nuclear power will be able to sell their carbon credits thus allowing the company to sell the electricy at a premium.

DRBUZZ0

29th September 2007, 07:31 PM

A number of reasons.

First building nuclear plants kicks out a fair amount of CO2.

Bull. I'm tired of hearing this because it has been debunked repeatedly. Building anything is going to require bulldozers and cranes. The workers will arrive every day in cars. There will always be some CO2, as long as we don't have a 100% nuclear society.

The amount of CO2 produced by a nuclear power plant is

http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/news/others/20000424.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm
http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/powerline/16/

The amount of energy returned for the amount of CO2 which is produced by building, mining of fuel, shipping and all other expenses is lower than photovoltaic and wind. The ONLY means of generating power that is less carbon intensive is hydroelectric, but that varries greatly depending on the location. Some areas require some very extensive dam building. But places like Niagra Falls you only need to build the plant.

But that's academic anyways, because all the optimal hydroelectric watersheds are already taken.

Second it is unusal to make that kind of payment to shareholders it's complex and messy. From the point of view the the goverment it makes far more sense to give the credits to the company which can then sell them on and use the money to build the plant.

It could be done that way too, but the crowed in the eco-stupid movement wet their pants every time they see something that could be considered a "subsidy" going to the nuclear industry.

It's preferable to subsidize solar and wind. Apparently that industry (the most heavily subsidized of any power generation technology) needs a lot more. With a few more billion it might break the 1% mark for total power generation.

Third a startup building nuclear plants isn't at this time produceing any CO2 however once they start to operate their customers who swich from non nuclear power will be able to sell their carbon credits thus allowing the company to sell the electricy at a premium.

that seems like a round-about way of doing it, but okay..

geni

29th September 2007, 08:28 PM

Bull. I'm tired of hearing this because it has been debunked repeatedly. Building anything is going to require bulldozers and cranes. The workers will arrive every day in cars. There will always be some CO2, as long as we don't have a 100% nuclear society.

How exactly was your 100% nuclear society planning to make concreate without releaseing CO2?

It could be done that way too, but the crowed in the eco-stupid movement wet their pants every time they see something that could be considered a "subsidy" going to the nuclear industry.

Stragely this has never stoped subsidies going to the nuclear industy.

It's preferable to subsidize solar and wind. Apparently that industry (the most heavily subsidized of any power generation technology) needs a lot more. With a few more billion it might break the 1% mark for total power generation.

Nah people object to wind power in their back gardern. Nuclear plants can be claimed as stragic assets so you can ignore the locals

that seems like a round-about way of doing it, but okay..

The market tends to be a round-about way of doing things. Are you questioning the market?

DRBUZZ0

29th September 2007, 08:46 PM

How exactly was your 100% nuclear society planning to make concreate without releaseing CO2?

Well, if you want zero carbon emissions, and you had enough nuclear capacity for truly ample amounts of energy, to the point where huge amounts of energy were avaliable cheaply, you could have an all-electric closed-system process. Any incidental CO2 releases from chemical processes or even the workers breathing could be taken up by renewable CO2 scrubbers and transformed into some sort of solid chemical. Or perhaps used to put the fizz in soda.

Stragely this has never stoped subsidies going to the nuclear industy.

The nuclear industry gets subsidies. Many industries get subsidies. Nuclear energy pales in comparison to the subsidies which solar and wind get, which ethanol production gets, synthetic fuel production and so on. For that matter... a damn lot of industries get subsidies. At least nuclear gets you something in return: A very significant reduction in CO2.

Nah people object to wind power in their back gardern. Nuclear plants can be claimed as stragic assets so you can ignore the locals

The locals will make it hard no matter how you do it. Some nutty lady used to run rallies near the nuke plant a few miles from me. Then I started showing up and them and now they don't do them anymore.

The market tends to be a round-about way of doing things. Are you questioning the market?

No. Just saying that giving the credits to the customers seems a bit of a strange way to do it. I'd consider just having the energy get a deduction. But then again: I'm not sure carbon credits do anything in reality as far as getting the actual amounts of CO2 down.

Earthborn

29th September 2007, 09:36 PM

If carbon offsets and carbon credits were not a scam, then anyone investing in a company that is building new nuclear plants should be handed them.

Oh? That does not happen? Why?Because it would not make any sense. A nuclear power plant doesn't need carbon credits because it doesn't emit any CO2. Only the construction company would need some.

It also doesn't make sense for a nuclear plant to be handed carbon offsets, again because it doesn't emit any CO2 to offset. A company that is replacing old fossil fuel plants with nuclear ones may start selling carbon offsets though.

Earthborn

29th September 2007, 09:45 PM

What if people just start buying a few tons of lithium hydroxide, manufactured in a carbon-neutral manner (such as by a nuclear, wind or solar powered chemical synthesis plant)?

I suppose that way there'd be no doubt you're soaking up more CO2 than you produce.I suppose that if you know of a way to produce lithium hydroxide or any other CO2 scrubber in a way that is both economical and CO2 neutral, then you are sitting on top of a fricking goldmine.

mhaze

29th September 2007, 11:37 PM

I suppose that if you know of a way to produce lithium hydroxide or any other CO2 scrubber in a way that is both economical and CO2 neutral, then you are sitting on top of a fricking goldmine.

Only if it was

a) nuclear power based
b) fully understood scientifically that CO2 emissions were a problem

(a) is not yet well understood
(b) is something the scientific basis may be eroding, not growing

Carbon credits and carbon offsets are two rings in a political circus.

what are they worth? Check here. (http://euets.com/)

April 2006 $30 euros
This week 0.06-0.60 euroswhat is the "market" telling us?

geni

30th September 2007, 02:29 AM

Well, if you want zero carbon emissions, and you had enough nuclear capacity for truly ample amounts of energy, to the point where huge amounts of energy were avaliable cheaply, you could have an all-electric closed-system process. Any incidental CO2 releases from chemical processes or even the workers breathing could be taken up by renewable CO2 scrubbers and transformed into some sort of solid chemical. Or perhaps used to put the fizz in soda.

The release of CO2 in the chemical process isn't incidental. It's kinda fundimental

The nuclear industry gets subsidies. Many industries get subsidies. Nuclear energy pales in comparison to the subsidies which solar and wind get, which ethanol production gets, synthetic fuel production and so on.

Factor in decommissioning costs long term waste storage and insurance and those subsidies are not even close.

The locals will make it hard no matter how you do it. Some nutty lady used to run rallies near the nuke plant a few miles from me. Then I started showing up and them and now they don't do them anymore.

Rallies can be ignored. The rockets are more of a pain but nothing a a goverment can't deal with.

No. Just saying that giving the credits to the customers seems a bit of a strange way to do it. I'd consider just having the energy get a deduction.

You wan't maxium amount of CO2 reduction for minium cost. You want to trust the goverment to work that out or the consumer?

But then again: I'm not sure carbon credits do anything in reality as far as getting the actual amounts of CO2 down.

In the very short term the CO2 levels will appear to go up. Short term they will go down. Medium term? eh depends on the price.

geni

30th September 2007, 02:38 AM

Only if it was

a) nuclear power based

I understand that greenland is fairly happy with it's geothermal power supplies.

b) fully understood scientifically that CO2 emissions were a problem

(a) is not yet well understood

Neither is some of the physics and chemistry behind liquid crystals what of it?

(b) is something the scientific basis may be eroding, not growing

IPCC who you might actulaly know what they are talking about would beg to differ. They were considerable more confident in the 2007 report than the 2001 report.

Carbon credits and carbon offsets are two rings in a political circus.

what are they worth? Check here. (http://euets.com/)

April 2006 $30 euros
This week 0.06-0.60 euroswhat is the "market" telling us?

That certian people lied about their intial levels of carbon emissions. Well yes that is to be expected.

mhaze

30th September 2007, 08:22 AM

I understand that greenland is fairly happy with it's geothermal power supplies.

Neither is some of the physics and chemistry behind liquid crystals what of it?

IPCC who you might actulaly know what they are talking about would beg to differ. They were considerable more confident in the 2007 report than the 2001 report.

That certian people lied about their intial levels of carbon emissions. Well yes that is to be expected.

I've read through your posts and find myself clueless as to what overall point or position you are trying to make. I assume it is not just to score debating points in some ping pong fashion. Rather my my trying to guess at it and probably just get it wrong, why don't you lay out what your position is regarding CO2, it's reduction by various means, and energy, it's creation and utilization by various means?

Please include numbers for gigaton CO2 reduction, increase or offset for each type of power, behavior change or shift in technology, and relate these to some reasonable standard. As an example, use the midline IPCC concept of worldwide reduction of CO2 by 22% over current levels by the year 2050.

Then I'll provide my analysis of how the midline IPCC concept can be reached.

Lonewulf

30th September 2007, 08:33 AM

mhaze

30th September 2007, 08:42 AM

What is this claim about nuclear power plants giving off lots of CO2 emissions in their construction? Does this mean we shouldn't construct anything?

Is the CO2 emissions from nuclear power plant building that disastrous compared to other power plants? What is it compared to present fossil fuel-based power plants?

The CO2 given off by nuclear plant construction is "bad CO2". Wind, solar and geothermal energy sources during the construction process produce 100X that amount of CO2 for a kilowatt of energy produced.

We can just overlook that.:D

Henners

30th September 2007, 08:42 AM

What is this claim about nuclear power plants giving off lots of CO2 emissions in their construction? Does this mean we shouldn't construct anything?

Is the CO2 emissions from nuclear power plant building that disastrous compared to other power plants? What is it compared to present fossil fuel-based power plants?

I drive a 6litre 1929 Mercedes limousine.

I get 14 miles to the gallon, but the manufacturing carbon is completely sunk, and has been since 1942.

How green is that?

(I am talking baloney, by the way.)

What about catalytic converters? The SO2 given off smelting the platinum ore means that the converter doesn't break even until 50,000km, apparently.

How green is that?

Lonewulf

30th September 2007, 08:52 AM

I drive a 6litre 1929 Mercedes limousine.

I get 14 miles to the gallon, but the manufacturing carbon is completely sunk, and has been since 1942.

How green is that?

(I am talking baloney, by the way.)

What about catalytic converters? The SO2 given off smelting the platinum ore means that the converter doesn't break even until 50,000km, apparently.

How green is that?

I'm... not entirely sure what your point is. :P

Henners

30th September 2007, 09:02 AM

I'm... not entirely sure what your point is. :P

Tricky question.

I guess it's that if something runs for long enough, the ecological cost of its manufacture is irrelevant.

How many really old cars do you see on the road?

How many people do you see choosing to buy second-hand in order to be green?

Most of the stuff talked about "green" is actually "rot".

Let's all fly to Greenland and look at the glaciers melting.

There are easy wins that are not even being considered.

What about double summer time? Or triple?

What is the carbon cost of shipping 15 million people into and out of London every day?

Maybe I listen in the wrong places, but I never hear things like this being discussed.

Lonewulf

30th September 2007, 09:06 AM

Carbon credits are a dumb idea, IMO, but that doesn't mean that lowering CO2 emissions is something that shouldn't be attempted.

Henners

30th September 2007, 09:35 AM

Carbon credits are a dumb idea, IMO, but that doesn't mean that lowering CO2 emissions is something that shouldn't be attempted.

No, indeed.

...and every single suggestion that you will see for how that may be done will come from someone with an ulterior motive.

Every comparison betwen options that you will see will be biased by an interest group.

Lonewulf

30th September 2007, 09:40 AM

No, indeed.

...and every single suggestion that you will see for how that may be done will come from someone with an ulterior motive.

Every comparison betwen options that you will see will be biased by an interest group.
This sounds like a bit of poisoning the well to me.

I think that one way to cut down on carbon emissions is to, quite frankly, push nuclear engineering. Nuclear energy doesn't give off as much C02 fossil fuels, is not as toxic as people make it seem, has plentiful energy, and can be a major source of energy across the world.

I'm all for "green" alternatives, such as wind energy, geothermal energy, and similar sources; but from what I've seen, they are not truly reliable sources of energy, and cannot become a primary source of energy anytime soon.

Henners

30th September 2007, 09:48 AM

I'm all for "green" alternatives, such as wind energy, geothermal energy, and similar sources; but from what I've seen, they are not truly reliable sources of energy, and cannot become a primary source of energy anytime soon.

Who told you that?

Salter's duck's potential was supressed for years by nuclear corruption of energy politics in the UK.

Why would they do that, now?

To help convince people like you that they have the answer?

Lonewulf

30th September 2007, 09:53 AM

To help convince people like you that they have the answer?

Actually, this convinced me:

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/index.html

While I'm sure you're happy to poison the well, I'd rather see more factually-based argumentation.

DRBUZZ0

30th September 2007, 09:56 AM

The release of CO2 in the chemical process isn't incidental. It's kinda fundimental

Well if you really want to clamp down on CO2 that much you could cure the concrete in some sort of sealed chamber filled with inert gas that is circulated through co2 scrubbers.

But then again, I sure hope you are not breathing, are you? HEY! Stop that!

Henners

30th September 2007, 09:56 AM

Actually, this convinced me:

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/index.html

While I'm sure you're happy to poison the well, I'd rather see more factually-based argumentation.

...funded entirely by public donations, I have no doubt.

Lonewulf

30th September 2007, 10:01 AM

...funded entirely by public donations, I have no doubt.

Is this "poisoning the well" actually getting through to you?

Actually, I know the guy that made that website. He's on the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forum as "311geek" (I think is his name, something like that).

From what I've read of his arguments, what he says is based on factual evidence and reality.

Nuclear power is not the "boogeyman" that environmentalist hysteriacs make it out to be.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to listen.

Henners

30th September 2007, 10:16 AM

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm willing to listen.

You could start, then, by explaining why research into Salter's duck was supressed under false pretexts for 20 years.

This "evidence to the contrary" has already been presented to you, and ignored.

Being willing to listen and SAYING that you are willing to listen are not the same thing.

Obviously.

Wikipedia will fill you in. Perhaps we could go to the conspiracy theories board with it?

Lonewulf

30th September 2007, 10:23 AM

You could start, then, by explaining why research into Salter's duck was supressed under false pretexts for 20 years.
I really don't know, nor do I care. I don't know about Salter's Duck, nor have I argued against, or in favor of it.

This "evidence to the contrary" has already been presented to you, and ignored.
What evidence? That some nuclear companies allegedly suppressed something I don't know about in some country I'm not in? So, therefore, nuclear energy is not a good answer for energy concerns, nor is it a good answer against CO2 emissions?

Being willing to listen and SAYING that you are willing to listen are not the same thing.

Obviously.
I'm willing to listen, but I'm talking about the potential beneficial effect of nuclear power, and it's lack of CO2 emissions. Discussion of "Salter's Duck" seems to be a non sequitor aimed at ruining the reputation of nuclear power plants across the world, thanks to one alleged incident in England 20 years ago. I hate to say it, but discrediting nuclear companies does not discredit nuclear energy, and it's viability.

Wikipedia will fill you in.
I did a search for Salter's Duck, and no entry was found. Perhaps you misspelled it?

Perhaps we could go to the conspiracy theories board with it?

I'd rather not. My focus of discussion is on the CO2 emissions of nuclear power plants (existing today and potentially existing in the future), and how they are viable sources of energy.

I am not interested in any conspiracy theory or conspiratorial mindset.

Henners

30th September 2007, 10:29 AM

I really don't know, nor do I care. I don't know about Salter's Duck, nor have I argued against, or in favor of it.

I am leaving this discussion right now.

That statement is false on two counts, and there is therefore no basis for continuing.

See you around.

mhaze

30th September 2007, 10:29 AM

You could start, then, by explaining why research into Salter's duck was supressed under false pretexts for 20 years.

This "evidence to the contrary" has already been presented to you, and ignored.

Being willing to listen and SAYING that you are willing to listen are not the same thing. Obviously. Wikipedia will fill you in. Perhaps we could go to the conspiracy theories board with it?

I have also tried to become halfway educated about nuclear technology and it's pros and cons. If you have something to contribute, I am most willing to listen. Some people agree with you - those people have seen to it that California legislation insures that California's four nuclear plant licenses will not be renewed when they expire.

Then in Texas, we do quite the opposite, don't we? Who exactly is right and why? Evidence?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446c3a1ecb2970.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7768)

Lonewulf

30th September 2007, 10:30 AM

I am leaving this discussion right now.
Uhm... okay?

That statement is false on two counts, and there is therefore no basis for continuing.
Oookay... if you say so.

See you around.
Bye!

BTW, just found out the link to "Wave Power" in Wikipedia, which lists information on Salter's Duck. I'll look into the information on that when I have time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power

Henners

30th September 2007, 10:35 AM

Geek Goddess

30th September 2007, 11:37 AM

What about catalytic converters? The SO2 given off smelting the platinum ore means that the converter doesn't break even until 50,000km, apparently.

How green is that? Calalytic converters also turn atmospheric nitrogen into NOx, which are toxic.

Well if you really want to clamp down on CO2 that much you could cure the concrete in some sort of sealed chamber filled with inert gas that is circulated through co2 scrubbers.You probably mean - *produce* concrete, not cure it.

I am leaving this discussion right now.
Run away! Run away!

It will tell you to insulate your house, but it will not tell you to reduce your commuting distance. Why is that?) My job is where it is. I work in a specific industry, that has very few locations. I can't make the company move closer to my home. Or should everyone take whatever job is closest to their house, regardless of their skills and experience in certain fields?

I can't afford to live closer to my work, as the housing prices are much higher there. And besides, I just spent a lot of money insulating my house.

DRBUZZ0

30th September 2007, 12:13 PM

I have also tried to become halfway educated about nuclear technology and it's pros and cons. If you have something to contribute, I am most willing to listen. Some people agree with you - those people have seen to it that California legislation insures that California's four nuclear plant licenses will not be renewed when they expire.

Then in Texas, we do quite the opposite, don't we? Who exactly is right and why? Evidence?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422446c3a1ecb2970.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7768)

Well, as far as producing large amounts of electricity without CO2 emissions then nuclear pretty much is the only game in town. Hydroelectric can do it too, but we've run out of rivers. Geothermal can as well, but only in suitable areas. If you want to do it in a region of thick crust, you'll have to go down a good few miles with boreholes, each of which can only produce so much steam.

Solar power is not going to cut it for primary power generating needs. I've written about it here: http://depletedcranium.com/?p=86

Solar is great for remote instalations, for failsafe supplemental power, for satellites that sort of thing. But if you want to run your society on solar and have it be anything more than a few percent, that's all but impossible. Even if costs were cut to 10% of current, it would still be a huge task to get 2% of power needs filled by solar.

The largest solar power producer in the world is in Germany. It cost a quarter of a billion dollars already and isn't even done. It will be able to produce 87 megawatts at full capacity (noon on a very dry, clear summer day). - that's equivalent to a very modestly sized power plant The annual average is about 4 megawatts of continuous equivalent power. 4 megawatts is basically a very single large diesel engine. Operating the plant can be considered the equivalent of having one single locomotive taken out of service on the railroads of the world at any given time. For what will be up to half a billion dollars when it's all said and done.

Wind power is somewhat better, but not all that much.

mhaze

30th September 2007, 12:24 PM

The largest solar power producer in the world is in Germany. It cost a quarter of a billion dollars already and isn't even done. It will be able to produce 87 megawatts at full capacity (noon on a very dry, clear summer day). - that's equivalent to a very modestly sized power plant The annual average is about 4 megawatts of continuous equivalent power. 4 megawatts is basically a very single large diesel engine. Operating the plant can be considered the equivalent of having one single locomotive taken out of service on the railroads of the world at any given time. For what will be up to half a billion dollars when it's all said and done.

The facts speak for themselves.

mhaze

30th September 2007, 12:29 PM

Well, as far as producing large amounts of electricity without CO2 emissions then nuclear pretty much is the only game in town.

What is explicitly being said here is that what is progressive, what societal change is useful and beneficial, is large scale nuclear power implementation. Further, that wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean wave power sources are of specialized utility, but are never going to amount to more than a few percent of overall power supplied.

The extent to which there is outright lying about these facts in the media and by special interest groups is amazing.

DRBUZZ0

30th September 2007, 01:07 PM

What is explicitly being said here is that what is progressive, what societal change is useful and beneficial, is large scale nuclear power implementation. Further, that wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean wave power sources are of specialized utility, but are never going to amount to more than a few percent of overall power supplied.

The extent to which there is outright lying about these facts in the media and by special interest groups is amazing.

I'm not going to in any way say that I would not support ANY form of energy which really and truly had the ability to produce real reductions in CO2 emissions. I see little use in throwing huge amounts of resources at any technology which simply cannot offer any equally huge benfits.

Solar energy for example, I tried to convince someone that it was limited. My point was that solar energy now is 20% efficient. If you got past 50% ever, that would be truely remarkable. The thermodynamic factors in conversion of light to electricity make that very difficult. 100% effeciency is effectively impossible.

But even if you could get 100% effeciency, you still find that you are always going to be limited by the avaliable power. Take the average luminous flux in a location and multiply that by the area of the solar cell then factor in the number of daylight hours and convert to Kw/h. That doesn't even include voltage regulation, transmission, storage, inversion and you already end up finding that it's a loosing battle and nearly impossible for northern and southern lattitudes.

Conservation is critical, but it can only do so much. Rememeber that the countries which use the most energy per capita have the highest living standards. It's not an issue of making those countries more like developing nations. Developing nations are striving to be more like the US and Western Europe, with information-centric employment, high tech manufacturing, refrigeration, modern transportation.

All the conservation in the world will not reduce energy usage. It may reduce the rate of growth of energy consumption, but any real reduction in energy usage would require a lot more effort than Moonshot, World War II and The Marshall plan combined. And even if rates of co2 emissions worldwide were cut by 5-10% (A near herculean achievement), that's still not nearly enough to actually have a major effect in stunting global warming.

The only way is to shift from burning fossil fuels for energy to something else that does not produce the levels of CO2. And the amounts needed are gigawatts and gigawatts for a given region of the world and terawatts for the whole of civilization. That's a... real... lot.

mhaze

30th September 2007, 04:10 PM

You probably realize that in some large part, people that hear these things such as what you as say think it is illogical, nonsense, and ridiculous because:

Major Premise (everyone says this so it MUST BE TRUE): CO2 is very bad because it causes global warming which must be stopped by urgent action now, causing it to need to be regulated and minimized - points 1-9 follow

1. Solar and wind is reasonably priced after taking into account the government subsidies which come from a bottomless pit
2. solar and wind is good natural things and nuclear is bad and a very unnatural thing
3. Carbon credits are good and make logical sense as a way to solve global warming, so you don't need nuclear plants and anyone who says you do is an industry sock puppet.
4. Third world people can be taught techniques of sustainable farming and living and they will do much better than present especially with income streams from carbon credits and offsets.
5. Kyoto protocol plans are good because they cause industries which have the most emissions to lower them by making them pay to emit.
6. You can buy your way out of emissions problems with exciting new technologies like windmills, solar farms, hybrid cars, better air conditioners, ceiling fans, and a whole array of supposedly green-friendly products.
7. Voting for one party or another is important and will help save the planet because in any country there is one that is pro Green Earth friendly and another that's clearly not.
8. Indirect, upstream and downstream costs of production, utilization and disposal, as well as indirect, upstream and downstream CO2 emissions do not have to be taken into account, just look at the immediacy of the moment. (But it's okay to quote the one single long debunked study that purported to show nuclear plants up and downstream costs make them not cost effective.)
9. Don't forget to just invest in a green portfolio, too, and round it out by buying carbon offsets everytime you fly on a jet or take a cruise.

Quite unfortunately, I am not making this up, and am not even addressing the more twisted and fringe arguments, just the mainstreamed ones.

My apologies if in posting this I have offended anyone. Everything in the above list is an utter myth and as far as the alleged impact on "Major Premise" has no impact whatsoever, or can be shown to have a negative impact on examination.

Lonewulf

1st October 2007, 03:27 AM

I like how the people that advocate solar energy talk about how "clean" it is, while ignoring the chemical process that makes it, which involves rather toxic chemicals that need to be stored somewhere.

Henners

1st October 2007, 03:39 AM

My job is where it is. I work in a specific industry, that has very few locations. I can't make the company move closer to my home. Or should everyone take whatever job is closest to their house, regardless of their skills and experience in certain fields?

I can't afford to live closer to my work, as the housing prices are much higher there. And besides, I just spent a lot of money insulating my house.

That's fine for you - and I have no doubt that your employer is doing everything possible to offset the extra carbon that you burn commuting, rather than leaching off the rest of us.

Now, can you explain why the Civil Service needs to be in Central London?

Can you also explain why we have heard no official line on how much carbon could be saved by responsible commuting?

Clue: Think of Sir Humphrey and the quality/quantity of Theatre, Opera, and Ballet in Exeter, per head of population, compared to London.

Incidentally, I was not running away, but refusing to indulge a poster who was being willfully "inaccurate".

Henners

1st October 2007, 03:45 AM

9. Don't forget to just invest in a green portfolio, too, and round it out by buying carbon offsets everytime you fly on a jet or take a cruise.

Look here, mhaze. The carbon in jet fuel has been out of circulation in the environment for millions of years, before RyanAir burn it up.

Can you suggest a (even) 10,000 year sequestration method?

Seriously, if you have a problem that is an issue on a 500 year (or that order) timescale, planting a tree, or sticking potato peelings in a plastic tub is hardly an effective solution.

Lonewulf

1st October 2007, 03:48 AM

Incidentally, I was not running away, but refusing to indulge a poster who was being willfully "inaccurate".
I take it you're talking about me.

Can you please demonstrate where I'm being "willfully inaccurate"? You just threw up some silly excuse of me being wrong, without being specific, and then, yes, you did run away from the discussion.

If you were actually interested in getting your message out there, you'd show where I was wrong for people viewing the conversation.

Look here, mhaze. The carbon in jet fuel has been out of circulation in the environment for millions of years, before RyanAir burn it up.

Can you suggest a (even) 10,000 year sequestration method?

Seriously, if you have a problem that is an issue on a 500 year (or that order) timescale, planting a tree, or sticking potato peelings in a plastic tub is hardly an effective solution.

I'm not sure what your point here is. What's your solution?

Rob Lister

1st October 2007, 06:06 AM

I'm not sure what your point here is. What's your solution?

I second the question. As written, Henner's post make no sense.

Lonewulf

1st October 2007, 06:13 AM

Geek Goddess

1st October 2007, 07:33 AM

That's fine for you - and I have no doubt that your employer is doing everything possible to offset the extra carbon that you burn commuting, rather than leaching off the rest of us. Why should my employer be responsible for offsetting extra carbon? What do you mean ' leaching off the rest of us?" That makes no sense.

Now, can you explain why the Civil Service needs to be in Central London?

Can you also explain why we have heard no official line on how much carbon could be saved by responsible commuting?No, I can't explain it. Who do the employees need to interface with? Where do most of the employees and the people who need to do business with the Civil Service live or work? How long has the CS been in its present location, and if it moved, how much further would the commute be for those who lived in the opposite side of the city from where it moved to? Does not London have an excellent Tube service throughout the city?

Clue: Think of Sir Humphrey and the quality/quantity of Theatre, Opera, and Ballet in Exeter, per head of population, compared to London.

Not being British and having been to London only twice, I do not have a frame of reference with which to evaluate this.

My current job is developing and install processing facilities that take very high CO2 gas streams producing as part of enhanced oil recovery operations, and remove the entrained NGL (natural gas liquids, ie, butane, propane, pentanes, etc), and recompress the CO2 stream to pressures suitable for reinjecting into the producing formation, for reservoir pressure maintenance and to decrease miscibility of the in-situ petroleum for easier extraction. A typical plant that I manage, which my company designed and constructed in Wyoming, takes a 20 million cubic feet per day produced gas stream (20 MMCFD) that is about 85% CO2, 8% methane, 2% nitrogen, and the remainder light hydrocarbons, removes those previously unrecoverable barrels of NGLs, and compresses the remaining CO2/methane/N2 stream up to 2000 psig and recycles it back into the reservoir. I give this my way demonstrating that I do have some knowledge of CO2 removal, as well as its chemical and thermodynamic properties and value as a commodity.

DRBUZZ0

1st October 2007, 09:39 AM

DRBUZZ0

1st October 2007, 09:53 AM

I would also like to see factually based demonstrations as to how nuclear energy is not a reliable source of energy, or has significant competition from whatever Henners feels is superior.

A side by side comparison to kw/hour would be nice, as well as the costs of construction; including physical costs and environmental costs.

Here's a chart that is pretty representative of what I've seen:

http://goldpactpower.com/chart.jpg

It doesn't include solar. That would be off the chart. Most of what I've seen for comparisons places nuclear energy around the same price as coal or slightly higher.

The costs in France, if you do not include the money spent in the original research and establishment of the program back years ago, is actually substantially lower than coal. They swear by a couple of reprocessing methods which has made their need for more fuel enrichment much smaller over the years and resulted in vast savings in the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of. (I believe they cut it by 97% or something, by only needing to dispose of long-lived fission byproducts)

There are also others who have said the cost can be cut even more by thorium-cycle reactors and other technologies.

But as it stands now: it's on par with coal. All things considered, including the long-term disposal of waste.

Here's another interesting chart. It's somewhat asking to make a logical leap of cause and effect, but it's still a decent real-world example.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006575.shtml

France: Nearly totally dependent on nuclear energy
Denmark: Has spent more money on wind energy than almost any other country. They get 18% of their energy from the wind, which is astoundingly high...
Sweeden is heavily reliant on hydroelectric power but they've just about run out of places to build dams, and there is strong opposition there to building more non-renewable power plants. They're having something of a shortage there..

I'm not sure about how comparisons to the eastern European countries are in terms of fairness though, because places like the Czech republic are still working on building some stable industries. Also, some countries have different environmental standards than others, in terms of what you can send up a stakck without scrubbing...

mhaze

1st October 2007, 10:12 AM

My current job is developing and install processing facilities that take very high CO2 gas streams producing as part of enhanced oil recovery operations, and remove the entrained NGL (natural gas liquids, ie, butane, propane, pentanes, etc), and recompress the CO2 stream to pressures suitable for reinjecting into the producing formation, for reservoir pressure maintenance and to decrease miscibility of the in-situ petroleum for easier extraction. A typical plant that I manage, which my company designed and constructed in Wyoming, takes a 20 million cubic feet per day produced gas stream (20 MMCFD) that is about 85% CO2, 8% methane, 2% nitrogen, and the remainder light hydrocarbons, removes those previously unrecoverable barrels of NGLs, and compresses the remaining CO2/methane/N2 stream up to 2000 psig and recycles it back into the reservoir. I give this my way demonstrating that I do have some knowledge of CO2 removal, as well as its chemical and thermodynamic properties and value as a commodity.

That is interesting.

That is the real stuff, I would like your opinion on a related topic. I'll get you the link.

mhaze

1st October 2007, 10:21 AM

It becomes obvious is this thread why some people in modern society actually build things, and others may deride those things, while enjoying the benefits from them, and unquestionably contributing in many other ways. Such is the fundamental level of personal wealth of the technological civilization we have built, only dimly comprehended by many.

95% of the people could just go back to working the farms, of course.

Geek Goddess

1st October 2007, 10:58 AM

That is interesting.

That is the real stuff, I would like your opinion on a related topic. I'll get you the link.

Thanks. I've worked in natural gas processing for 26 years.

BTW, I did not proof my post before I went to lunch, and was unable to correct the typos and a couple construction errors. Apologies to those having to read through it!

Lonewulf

1st October 2007, 11:35 AM

Nuclear power is most certainly not reliable. If it's so reliable then I dare anyone to consider the possibility of ever living within feet of a nuclear reactor for months at a time, with your life depending on its operation, while in a sealed vessel, in a location known only to you and the others in the vessel, under hundreds or thousands of feet of salt water...
I would.

Yeah, if nuclear power is so reliable how come nobody would ever do that?????

oh wait...

nevermind
Sarcastic much? :D

I meant reliable in terms of energy concerns, environmental concerns, and economic concerns.

Lonewulf

1st October 2007, 12:22 PM

Here's a chart that is pretty representative of what I've seen:

http://goldpactpower.com/chart.jpg
Interesting chart. Is it fully accurate, though? It seems to be made by GoldPact power, which claims it's headed for "100% alternative energy". Is it reliable information?

BTW, this is interesting. Gas is lowest of all in cost, but has the highest in CO2 production it seems, as well as the highest in fuel cost. I assume that means that it won't last us for long, but it's inexpensive.

It doesn't include solar. That would be off the chart. Most of what I've seen for comparisons places nuclear energy around the same price as coal or slightly higher.
So solar would be more expensive than Wave Power? Sheeesh, that would be mucho expensivo.

The costs in France, if you do not include the money spent in the original research and establishment of the program back years ago, is actually substantially lower than coal. They swear by a couple of reprocessing methods which has made their need for more fuel enrichment much smaller over the years and resulted in vast savings in the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of. (I believe they cut it by 97% or something, by only needing to dispose of long-lived fission byproducts)
Yeah, you'll see that on the Freedom for Fission webpage.

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/cyc/waste.html

however, from what I understand, breeder reactors have a problem with making weapons-grade plutonium, which is the primary criticism (From what I get).

There are also others who have said the cost can be cut even more by thorium-cycle reactors and other technologies.

But as it stands now: it's on par with coal. All things considered, including the long-term disposal of waste.

Here's another interesting chart. It's somewhat asking to make a logical leap of cause and effect, but it's still a decent real-world example.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10006575.shtml

France: Nearly totally dependent on nuclear energy
Denmark: Has spent more money on wind energy than almost any other country. They get 18% of their energy from the wind, which is astoundingly high...
Sweeden is heavily reliant on hydroelectric power but they've just about run out of places to build dams, and there is strong opposition there to building more non-renewable power plants. They're having something of a shortage there..

Hm, intriguing...

I'm not sure about how comparisons to the eastern European countries are in terms of fairness though, because places like the Czech republic are still working on building some stable industries. Also, some countries have different environmental standards than others, in terms of what you can send up a stakck without scrubbing...
Yeah, safety precautions need to be undertaken, which does tend to make the process more costly.

DRBUZZ0

1st October 2007, 01:36 PM

Interesting chart. Is it fully accurate, though? It seems to be made by GoldPact power, which claims it's headed for "100% alternative energy". Is it reliable information?

Let me find some more...

http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html
http://www.vattenfall.com/annual-reports/vf_com/2006/filter.asp?filename=page_013.html
http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&mode=nested&sid=1145

The actual cost depends on a number of factors. It's generally less in larger nuclear projects, where you have a number of the same reactor type and don't need to certify and approve each separately. Also it depends on the fuel used and the lifetime of the plant.

Everything I've seen puts it completive with coal or better.

BTW, this is interesting. Gas is lowest of all in cost, but has the highest in CO2 production it seems, as well as the highest in fuel cost. I assume that means that it won't last us for long, but it's inexpensive.

It depends somewhat on how it is calculated. If you factor in the cost of building the plant and so on. With nuclear only about 25% max is the cost of fuel. Much of the rest is the construction. If you figure that the plant is basically "paid off" after a certain number of years then the cost drops by quite a lot.

It also depends on what you have. Gas can be cheap if it's avaliable in the area and there's no pipeline to get it to market. But if you're away from the source and it has to be brought in by tanker as a refridgerated liquid then it's very expensive.

So solar would be more expensive than Wave Power? Sheeesh, that would be mucho expensivo.

The energy density of solar power is very very poor. Take for example the north eastern US, where I live. You get an average of about 120 watts of sunlight energy per square meter. That's average, for day and night, winter and summer. So assuming you use it as a major source of energy it's the equivelent of 120 watts of avaliable power..

Except solar energy right now is about 20% efficient. Some of the best solar cells around will do better than 30%, but thats bleeding edge and I doubt anyone has ever proposed it could go above 50%. (that kind of energy conversion you have thermodynamic issues)

So we'll say you get 25 watts per square meter out of the solar panel. Okay, now the other issue is that it's relatively low voltage DC. You need continuous voltage that doesn't change and you need it to be high enough to be useful. To power any AC stuff, you need to invert it. All that together is going to cost energy. Being generous, lets say that that's 80% efficient.

Now we have 20 watts of usable actual energy per square meter. Now the other problem is that if you actually want to rely on solar for a primary power source and get more than a small percentage you need buffering for continuous power. The grid does not like having the avaliable generation go up and down when a freak thunder storm blows in or something. And unless you plan on using it for only part of the day you'll need a means of storing it.

You can do high capacity lead acid batteries. Those are the only ones economical on such a scale. But you loose a good 30% of the energy in the charging cycle.

Remember, these are panels of semiconductor material. Even the best ideas for making it cheap by moving to die-based "printed" cells fall short of economical.

however, from what I understand, breeder reactors have a problem with making weapons-grade plutonium, which is the primary criticism (From what I get).

A fast neutron reactor is the best choice for burning plutonium and also reducing some fission products like iodine-129. However, the other issue is that it also makes plutonium rather efficiently. And since you can extract it chemically without needing complex enrichment systems... well there's a problem there.

There are ways of dealing with the proliferation concern by such things as thorium-cycle reactors and such. Those don't produce any plutonium, although in theory they could have the U-233 removed from the fuel for weaponry, this turns out to be very difficult in and of itself.

But I've made the point before that it's understandable that you don't want reactors that could potentially produce plutonium in Haiti or Fiji or Grenada or Zimbabway. It's hard to be certain that there won't be a coupe tomorrow or that the government can even keep track of the stuff.

But if you want to keep weapons grade plutonium and potential weapons out of the hands of the US or Russia or Brittan then you're a bit late. The US has enough plutonium pits in storage to build thousands more nuclear weapons. Building reactors doesn't really increase the nuclear weapons abilities.

Lonewulf

1st October 2007, 01:43 PM

Very good post, Dr. Buzzo. You've given me a few more data points, and you've made me think on the topic some more.

I will comment here:

But if you want to keep weapons grade plutonium and potential weapons out of the hands of the US or Russia or Brittan then you're a bit late. The US has enough plutonium pits in storage to build thousands more nuclear weapons. Building reactors doesn't really increase the nuclear weapons abilities.

True enough. :D

mhaze

1st October 2007, 01:57 PM

Excellant, detailed analysis. I should go "devil's advocate" and produce the best possible anti-nuclear position just for kicks and grins....have to think about that (I am pro nuclear, remember here).

Wouldn't it be fair to say that wind aggregates solar, which is why extracting power from wind beats solar?

And wave action is an effect of wind, so power extraction from wave should should be an order of magnitude or two worse than wind.

Geek Goddess

1st October 2007, 02:04 PM

BTW, this is interesting. Gas is lowest of all in cost, but has the highest in CO2 production it seems, as well as the highest in fuel cost. I assume that means that it won't last us for long, but it's inexpensive.

Here is one government report, among many, that show how much CO2 is emitted from power generation on a tons of CO2 per kwh of power generated (see near bottom of table 1, "output rate") Natural gas is the lowest of the fossil fuels. I can calculate the moles of CO2 produced for the combustion any natural gas component, but I admit I have no idea of the chemical composition of the various coals. However, natural gas burns cleanly to water vapor and CO2, unless there are trace amounts of H2S in it (which is limited to a maximum of 0.25 gr/100 CF but in practice are kept much lower). However, the composition of coal would indicate that there are many more pollutants in a complex hydrocarbon than in simple straight-chain hydrocarbons, which burning them. Does anyone has accent to assays on coal?

mhaze

1st October 2007, 09:32 PM

Okay, here is my best "devil's advocate" Nuclear Bad argument.

Nuclear plants are typically amortized with a certain cost of money extrapolated into the future. In a similar fashion, the estimated cost of disposal is figured to have a present value based on a imputed interest rate for stream of future costs of disposal. Not only that, but statistically likely future catastrophes, certain to occur, but uncertain as to timing, can be reduced to a present value, similar to the ways that insurance contracts are underwritten.

The commercial construction of nuclear power plants either in a free market or state dominated economy under estimates
the time period over which waste disposal must be computed and
the time period over which catastrophic events must be effectively insured for.When these time periods are properly calculated (thousands of years) the present value of these cost, maintenance and risk streams is so high as to be conservatively estimated in the hundreds of trillions of dollars per plant.

Industry does not want you to know this. Industry funds media and propaganda machines to sing the siren song of nuclear safety.

Is that all? No of course not. What does the fuel cost?

Nuclear fuel is commonly considered to be inexpensive, but reserves are being used up and demand is rising. Fuel is a commodity and is subject to OPEC style price rigging and embargos. If we became more dependent on nuclear energy, then we would be subject to the likes of OPEC price fixing to the tune of hundreds of times higher prices for the fuel than is currently the case. Canada would be the new OPEC.

Geek Goddess

2nd October 2007, 08:24 AM

Canada would be the new OPEC. Australia has large uranium reserves.

DRBUZZ0

2nd October 2007, 08:33 AM

Australia has large uranium reserves.

contrary to what is sometimes said about uranium not being able to last more than a few decades, it's almost unfathomable that it could be entirely used. The estimates consider only if the current uranium mines stay open but no other deposits are mined.

There are massive amounts of uranium in Canada, the United States, Africa, Australia. Australia has huge mining operations. During the Cold War, finding uranium was a high priority for the USGS. There are very large deposits in Colorado. Also in Utah and elsewhere out west. Even the northeast has some modest deposits.

Congo has some of the biggest and highest concentration uranium deposits. Russia does not rank near the top in terms of uranium reserves, but they have some of the largest processing and mining operations on the reserves that they do have. Also they're the biggest enricher of uranium.

If you consider how much highly enriched uranium is avaliable from retired weapons the amounts are even higher.

Then consider that reprocessing and recovery and fabrication of MOX fuel basically tripples the amount you get from a fuel rod right there.

On top of that, India is putting it's money on the thorium cycle reactor. India has one of the biggest reserves of thorium in the world. And thorium reactors are theoretically able to reuse the fuel through U-233 breeding hundreds of times.

It's not as much that it's so plentiful, because compared to many minerals its not, but even low enrichment uranium has hundreds of thousands to millions of times the energy per mass as coal or other fossil fuels.

mhaze

2nd October 2007, 11:05 AM

Australia has large uranium reserves.

And one does wonder why they do not build a few plants. It's an ideal place for nuclear power, with most of the population on the east and southeast coast, instead of being widely dispersed. Off prime time power could be used essentially for free for production of fresh water from sea water.

pipelineaudio

2nd October 2007, 11:48 AM

stonesean

2nd October 2007, 12:05 PM

And one does wonder why they do not build a few plants. It's an ideal place for nuclear power, with most of the population on the east and southeast coast, instead of being widely dispersed. Off prime time power could be used essentially for free for production of fresh water from sea water.

I happen to be a big proponent of nuclear power only because I have first hand experience about just how safe it could be.

I lived within 1000 feet of 2 Westinghouse A4 nuclear reactors on board the USS Harry S. Truman for 3 years. They were run by engineering personnel. (I'm a cryptologist) The vast majority of whom had NO college education. The Navy of course provides training to the nuclear techs, and the officers have college education, but it's nothing that anyone else couldn't pick up.

My favorite benefit of nuclear power? One of the by products of nuclear power is distilled water, so unlike some conventional ships that need to ration water by limiting shower times, we had all the safe, clean fresh water we needed.....

As far as carbon offsets go, I've always viewed them like the Catholic Church viewed indulgences. Money paid for sins allow guys like Al Gore and John Edwards to sleep at night after he tells us that Americans should give up thier SUV's from the sunroof of one of their SUV's or the boarding ramp of their Gulfstream jet......

Geek Goddess

2nd October 2007, 01:11 PM

I lived within 1000 feet of 2 Westinghouse A4 nuclear reactors on board the USS Harry S. Truman for 3 years. They were run by engineering personnel. (I'm a cryptologist) The vast majority of whom had NO college education. The Navy of course provides training to the nuclear techs, and the officers have college education, but it's nothing that anyone else couldn't pick up.

This is what my oldest son does - he's a nuclear mechanic in the Navy. He spent 19 months in schools and working in a power plant before setting foot on a sub. Quite a bit of his training gives him credits towards his mech engineering degree.

DRBUZZ0

2nd October 2007, 06:57 PM

I happen to be a big proponent of nuclear power only because I have first hand experience about just how safe it could be.

I lived within 1000 feet of 2 Westinghouse A4 nuclear reactors on board the USS Harry S. Truman for 3 years. They were run by engineering personnel. (I'm a cryptologist) The vast majority of whom had NO college education. The Navy of course provides training to the nuclear techs, and the officers have college education, but it's nothing that anyone else couldn't pick up.

The reactors they use on naval vessels are surprisingly robust and simple to operate. They don't really need any servicing or refueling at sea and have that done in port every few years. (the fuel can last decades before being replaces).

It's a modular system and pretty much fail-safe. The reactor generates the heat to send pressurized water to the heat exchanger. The pumps are all pretty simple. The reactor is self-regulating and if something goes wrong it is easy to shut down by lowering the control rods manually.

The only stuff that really needs taking care of are the turbines, the stills, the plumbing, condensors and so on. The reactor is almost a "black box." of course, I'm sure that they are trained in how to react to any problems. But generally it tends to work pretty well.

My favorite benefit of nuclear power? One of the by products of nuclear power is distilled water, so unlike some conventional ships that need to ration water by limiting shower times, we had all the safe, clean fresh water we needed.....

Yeah, having ample power is nice. You can run at full speed with hot showers running, lights blazing, radar scanning, aircraft launching and no concern at all for fuel.

Actually, the difference on a submarine is even more dramatic. Aside from the fact that you have to come up to recharge every few days.. Even the best of the air-independent systems pretty much leave the crew sitting in relatively cold areas with a few small lights and if they're trying to maximize time under, they don't even get any hot food or showers. Too much energy.. way too much!

DRBUZZ0

2nd October 2007, 06:59 PM

Who says noone will live near nuke plants? The town of Tonopah in Arizona has Palo Verde nuclear plant right in the middle of it. I want to live in the area because it is one of the few places near town where the environment isnt totally destroyed by house flippers, but the houses just cost too much right now.

Imagine if one more plant got built and we could get rid of the hoover and roosevelt and bartlett dams!!!

This used to be a beautiful landscape, with many rivers and streams, which are all dammed up for hydro-electric

I doubt that will ever happen. Even if they switched to a mostly nuclear based power system, the power from a hydroelectric dam is basically "free" after the construction is complete. The hoover dam creates a good two gigawatts at maximum capacity... basically free.

Plus they are used for irrigation and flood control and all that. I highly doubt that you'll see those major dams come down any time in the foreseeable future.

Lonewulf

2nd October 2007, 07:04 PM

The only problem with reactors on submarines is when they're about ready to go thermonuclear and wipe out a full city block, a la what almost happened on K-19: Widowmaker.

Scary stuff, those reactors! ;)

Beerina

3rd October 2007, 06:48 AM

If carbon offsets and carbon credits were not a scam, then anyone investing in a company that is building new nuclear plants should be handed them.

Oh? That does not happen? Why?

On the other hand, they don't have to buy them from others, either. The details might be a bit rough and need some work, but the theory is sound: The government decides, hopefully scientifically, how much carbon should be spewed into the air. Divide that into one billion (or whatever) and that's how many carbon credits there are.

The real scientific interest is in limiting the amount of carbon to a fixed amount. We don't really care where it comes from. Trying to manage individual industries directly is problematic at best, and loaded with fraud on both sides at worst. Actually, failure at worst, since industries that can't get up to mandated speed whine and Congress caves and relaxes the standards.

In this way, industries don't have a standard; they just have costs, which pressure them to reduce emissions.

mhaze

3rd October 2007, 08:57 AM

On the other hand, they don't have to buy them from others, either. The details might be a bit rough and need some work, but the theory is sound: The government decides, hopefully scientifically, how much carbon should be spewed into the air. Divide that into one billion (or whatever) and that's how many carbon credits there are.

The real scientific interest is in limiting the amount of carbon to a fixed amount. We don't really care where it comes from. Trying to manage individual industries directly is problematic at best, and loaded with fraud on both sides at worst. Actually, failure at worst, since industries that can't get up to mandated speed whine and Congress caves and relaxes the standards.

In this way, industries don't have a standard; they just have costs, which pressure them to reduce emissions.

Hmmm....

Following your logic, then, nations in the Kyoto protocol should have done better than the US in reducing emissions.

Oops.... The US did better than the Kyoto nations....

Can you explain this?

DRBUZZ0

3rd October 2007, 10:09 AM

Going back to my original post... Wouldn't it reduce carbon emissions if I were to *not* burn coal in exchange for money?

I mean it would be the same if I didn't burn the coal at all, but assuming I do it if not paid off then paying me off effectively will prevent some CO2 production. That is if I'm serious and the alternative is I do actually start burning stuff..

mhaze

3rd October 2007, 08:33 PM

Pay poor people to stay cold in the winter?

Pay car thieves as long as they take the cars to chop shops.

Schools use lots of power. Pay kids to not go.

Then there is work. Work is almost always CO2 intensive. Any money left to pay people to not work? No? Tax the big emitters more and raise some.

Geek Goddess

4th October 2007, 07:52 AM

The reactors they use on naval vessels are surprisingly robust and simple to operate. They don't really need any servicing or refueling at sea and have that done in port every few years. (the fuel can last decades before being replaces).

It's a modular system and pretty much fail-safe. The reactor generates the heat to send pressurized water to the heat exchanger. The pumps are all pretty simple. The reactor is self-regulating and if something goes wrong it is easy to shut down by lowering the control rods manually.

The only stuff that really needs taking care of are the turbines, the stills, the plumbing, condensors and so on. The reactor is almost a "black box." of course, I'm sure that they are trained in how to react to any problems. But generally it tends to work pretty well.

Yeah, having ample power is nice. You can run at full speed with hot showers running, lights blazing, radar scanning, aircraft launching and no concern at all for fuel.

Actually, the difference on a submarine is even more dramatic. Aside from the fact that you have to come up to recharge every few days.. Even the best of the air-independent systems pretty much leave the crew sitting in relatively cold areas with a few small lights and if they're trying to maximize time under, they don't even get any hot food or showers. Too much energy.. way too much!

I picked up my phone, called my son, and read this post to him. Sailor Boy is an E-5 MMN (Maintenance Mechanic Nuclear) and serves on a Los Angeles class fast attack sub. He works in the engine room and reactor areas on the boat.

It is not cold and dark in the boat. They keep air conditioners running because of the heat generated by the bodies and the electronics - in all of the boat, not just the engine room and power plant. He said sometimes individuals who are cold-natured might wear long sleeve shirts or a sweater, but most of the time they are in shirt sleeves, and shirtless if they are working on equipment. Everything is well-lit, and if the lights even flicker, they whine to the electricians.

During his last deployment, they were once under for two months, sometimes doing full-speed drills. They did not come up to 'recharge.' They had hot showers every day, and hot cooked food every meal, including pancakes every 'morning' (and eggs before they ran out), Taco Tuesdays, Surf 'n Turf Sundays, and pizza from scratch every Friday. They also had Starbucks coffee, once one of the cooks discovered the commander's secret stash.

Lonewulf

4th October 2007, 08:11 AM

Thanks for sharing, Geek. That was both informative and amusing. :D

DRBUZZ0

4th October 2007, 03:23 PM

I picked up my phone, called my son, and read this post to him. Sailor Boy is an E-5 MMN (Maintenance Mechanic Nuclear) and serves on a Los Angeles class fast attack sub. He works in the engine room and reactor areas on the boat.

It is not cold and dark in the boat. They keep air conditioners running because of the heat generated by the bodies and the electronics - in all of the boat, not just the engine room and power plant. He said sometimes individuals who are cold-natured might wear long sleeve shirts or a sweater, but most of the time they are in shirt sleeves, and shirtless if they are working on equipment. Everything is well-lit, and if the lights even flicker, they whine to the electricians.

During his last deployment, they were once under for two months, sometimes doing full-speed drills. They did not come up to 'recharge.' They had hot showers every day, and hot cooked food every meal, including pancakes every 'morning' (and eggs before they ran out), Taco Tuesdays, Surf 'n Turf Sundays, and pizza from scratch every Friday. They also had Starbucks coffee, once one of the cooks discovered the commander's secret stash.

Yes... That's the difference with a nuclear boat. You compare that to a non-nuclear sub, which the US does not use and hasn't for some time and it's night and day.

The German navy has what are considered the most advanced of the non-nuclear subs around. The air-independent systems include fuel cells and NiMH batteries. They even can run the diesel engines underwater for a limited period of time by feeding them liquid oxygen and using a sort of closed-circuit scrubber that allows them to "rebreathe" the exhaust.

Just the same; although the boats are fast and can stay under for up to two weeks, they cannot stay under for anywhere near two weeks while being fast.

The under water endurance of a non-nuclear boat is based on very limited power. If they want to sit somewhere at observe covertly or stay in case they are needed, they shut down just about everything unnecessary. The lights are all high-efficiency LED's and the "Power-down" involves a lot of being cold, eating cold food, living in limited light with only one passive sonar on and the essential life-support systems.

I'm not sure if you took the post out of context, but it was meant to show the difference between a nuclear boat and non-nuclear. In sailor-boys boat they have ample power and never need to come up to recharge. If they want to do a couple of weeks covertly in an area, they are not reduced to huddling under the power of a few lights, while trying to conserve the energy in the battery. They can cruise at maximum throttle for months without breaking a sweat while all the electronics are humming.