Don’t just kill a watt – Megawatt !

Exposing 4 Energy Related Myths

Myth #1, It is OK to allow governments and environmentalists to restrict clean energy development.

Excess CO2 causes changing climate and ocean acidification. Fossil fuels are being burned at ever faster rates because developing countries are rapidly developing their infrastructure. Fossil fuels cause pollution and adverse health effects and tar sands are converting forests into wastelands. Fossil fuels will not last very long. Therefore, in order to DEAL with these problems, we need a VAST supply of clean energy! We can NOT allow any organization to impose laws that restrict the ability for any clean energy development. Future prosperity depends on cheap clean energy.

Myth #2, Solar and wind can do it all at this time.

Solar and wind can NOT power “everything”, however, they can power a lot. Solar and wind could supply up to 20% of global power needs, right now, if machine mass produced for cheap. After that, very affordable and efficient energy storage will be needed. Machine automation is a must for inexpensive electric car batteries, as well. Nevertheless, we MUST promote machine made solar and wind because they have AWESOME potential and are almost cheap enough (already) to not need subsidies. Thousands of square miles of solar and millions of wind turbines are little detriment compared to fossil fueled depletion into an over heated biosphere. We will, however, need a more powerful baseload source of clean energy to provide for the needs of a growing planetary civilization.

Myth #3, Conservation and efficiency will solve all the problems.

Efficiency and conservation (demand side) can reduce up to 50% of global power needs, however, the developing world will still need about FIVE TIMES what the West consumes. Efficiency and conservation, although necessary, can NOT prevent depletion in a fossil fueled world. We MUST promote efficiency and conservation but NOT at the expense of clean energy development!

Myth #4, Nuclear can not safely power the world.

Nuclear energy, despite being generated in the old fashioned, inefficient and inherently dangerous water reactors, have the best safety record by far over each of: coal, oil, natural gas and hydroelectric. Even though, there are better ways to split the atom. The Molten Salt Reactor (and other closed cycles) have already been proven to the demonstration level decades ago. Closed cycle molten salt reactors are inherently melt down proof. Now, MSR’s (or better alternative) MUST be re-developed and produced by the thousands in a factory setting. Wastes from the closed cycle constitute just 1% of that from today’s water reactors and decay back down to natural levels in about 300 years, and thus must be isolated for only about 1/1,000ths of the time required by today’s “spent fuel”. Fast reactors and MSR’s fission their fuel on the order of 100 times more efficiently than today’s water reactors! Also, liquid fuels can be synthesized from water and air by the high process heat of the MSR.

A world devoid of abundant clean energy is a world at war.

Humanity in depletion mode will be FAR more detrimental to the environment than lots of wind, solar, batteries and nuclear. Thus any organization or government that seeks to limit clean energy development is against humanity AND the environment!

Promote machine mass produced wind, solar and electric vehicles.

Promote factory produced closed cycle molten salt reactors.

Don’t just kill a watt – Megawatt !

Awareness is essential – please copy and distribute.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Myth of Limitation

THE MYTH OF LIMITATION
We have a global problem.
There is no global fossil fuels replacement strategy.

We have excess regulations and complacency which will lead to a future of of mass depletions, if we do not create for ourselves an excess of clean energy.

Trivial amounts of clean energy will not solve the twin problems of depletion and excess CO2.

There are just three actual fossil fuels replacement options. There is also a fourth, non energy “half measure”, and even a fifth, which is a “use fossil fuels now but clean it up later” option.

1; Renewables.
Such as wind, solar and advanced geothermal. Other renewables such as biofuels, tidal and wave energy are not physically capable of supplying the immense power necessary at the global scale to provide for ten billion people. However, there is nothing wrong with any amount of clean renewable (no matter how trivial) as long as it is not too costly to the population as a whole and as long as it is not used as a tool to defeat other options.

2; Nuclear fission.
The power of fission can provide for multiple present day total global power supplies. It has to be scaled up in an inherently safe and affordable manner to do so. Contrary to popular myth, nuclear energy is the least environmentally damaging way to power a planetary civilization – at this time. There is less war in an energy abundant (non resource depleting) world, as well.
Weapons programs are not based on civilian energy, thus we can’t dismiss nuclear energy on the basis of proliferation. Various different reactor designs allow for wastes recycling, fuels denaturing and melt down proof operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E2GTg7W7Rc#!

3; Nuclear fusion. To overcome the diffuse and intermittent nature of the renewables, and to displace the fear and waste issues concerning fission, the continued research towards fusion at the global level is a must. Fusion power can only be 30 years away for so long.

In the meantime, we must develop the renewables and nuclear with the priority being:
SCALE UP THE LEAST EXPENSIVE, MOST ABUNDANT SOURCES, IMMEDIATELY.
We will NEED abundant energy resources in order to continue the economic growth necessary to attain baseload fusion technology!!!

4; Continued efficiency and conservation.
Efficiency is already mainstream, but clean abundant energy is not. We are not even close!
Although necessary in a finite fuels scenario to conserve, and for the improvement of technological progress (such as led lighting, cheaper insulation and electric cars), efficiency simply can NOT power a planetary civilization.
Passive solar energy siting should be required in this age of finite resources. However, we can not sit idle lest we conserve till the last drop.

5; CO2 sequestration via machine automation.
This option only addresses the excess CO2 part of the equation and is therefore not applicable to addressing the equally severe consequences of depletion (including adverse health risks due to pollution). Also, there is no guarantee that the excess CO2 will really be sequestered. Or the inappropriate but cheaper CCS tactic might be used. So called carbon capture and storage into depleted wells is not an acceptable option because there is no way to guarantee that the many billions of tons of compressed CO2 would not leak back into the environment.
Humanity may have to use machine automation for the autonomous mining of the material (such as olivine) necessary to sequester the excess CO2 into carbonates. The size of this tech fix will be on the order of the scale of coal mining is today for many years and will be possible when autonomous machinery is common. Costs will, nevertheless still be daunting and probably require a burdensome tax on CO2 to pay for the manufacture, maintenance and power required to initiate the machinery.

We should concentrate on developing ALL of these options so that the least amount of fossil fuels will be depleted.

Fossil fuels are being consumed in an ever acceleration level:
1; Developing countries will catch up and then surpass us in their ability to “consume”.
2; A major fraction of the energy produced may also be used for CO2 sequester.

As the finite resource is exponentially depleted, it will become ever more expensive to address its mounting external costs (much less provide a continued decent standard of living for the world). A depleting source can NOT power any long lived civilization.

Excess CO2 can cause ocean acidification and global warming, but we can not DEAL with the problems if we do not have the energy resources to do so. If the proven excess of CO2 does not cause unacceptable alterations to the biosphere, we will still need to address two major inescapable consequences.
1; Environmental pollution, health issues and fatalities.
2; Depletion and economic collapse.

~WE MUST DEPLOY SCIENCE, NOT JUST CO2 TAX “SOLUTIONS”~

We can not afford to settle for political solutions (unless they are proven by a majority that they will cause the development of abundant clean energy at the global scale which provides a net economic gain into the private sector greater than the loss incurred by taxation or other action).
The National Labs, NASA and the freeway system have all created economic gain, proof that there is possibility in government involvement.

But these great institutions and accomplishments are far more than just a tax!

We need to make sure that if or when there is a CO2 tax, it goes directly into a great accomplishment. What we need to do is promote clean and abundant energy, regardless.

We need to remove any constraints so actual development and deployment at the global scale is realized. These constraints are:
Greed,
Unscientific reporting by the media,
Political motives,
Lack of basic energy awareness by the public at large.
Actual costs!

Greed is obviously a motivator in preventing abundant and clean energy from becoming mainstream. Every energy company will come up with reasons “why they are the best” but we need to promote the LEAST COSTLY, MOST ABUNDANT CO2 FREE SOURCES.

Newsbites from the media do not offer necessary coverage because the complexity of the energy/climate issue demands more attention. Inadequate info constrains the ability for collective action towards a common, and desirable goal. However, the media does help in spreading awareness of the initial problem.
Biased and polarized, promoting total anti-anthropological global warming on the one side and total anti-nuclear, CO2 tax based solutions and “wind and solar can do it all” on the other (we even have greenie aliens moaning and groaning about… too much wind and solar) !!! Do we ever hear about any coherent solutions???

Political motives may want to suppress the inalienable rights of each individual and of the collective to clean and abundant energy so as to guarantee current positions within an established hierarchy. They can also use the truth of excess CO2 as an excuse to tax… with uncertain results concerning its replacements.

Lack of basic understanding of global power requirements necessary to power a planetary civilization by the public at large is, indeed, the greatest obstacle because most of us have neglected the right to become informed, network and then initiate action to fully promote abundant and clean energy at the global level. We must be careful not to let the whims of any one side to manipulate us into cherry picking to our liking. We must want to “do the math”. Only in this way will we realize the potential and limitations of each of the 5 options (and of the many sub options within each one).

Costs are the final trump on any energy related argument. Development of automated factories or processes is required to scale up abundant solar energy. Development of a factory setting for a reactor design based on inherent safety and proliferation resistance is required to scale up nuclear. And development of the same such for solar will be required to scale up battery manufacture for cheap, for the electric car, and possibly, even efficient utility scale storage. And the development of such for nuclear will also be required to scale up wind power.

Subsidy is required for initial start up and research phases. Small scale is easily afforded by the population and has paid off in the end for many technologies, such as for coal. However, we can’t afford subsidies for large scale energy development. Hence the necessity for machine and or factory automation which pave the way for much lower costs.

Cost constraints are imposed by the lack of a well aware and organized population willing to promote a well defined and focused global clean energy objective.
Cost constraints include unwillingness by investors to risk on new endeavors, as well.

We must expose these constrains to create awareness in order to ensure future prosperity.

Activists from around the world need to spread awareness about what it really takes to have clean energy on a global scale.

The product is machine mass produced renewables, factory produced (inherently safe nuclear) and machine mass produced electric vehicle batteries. All processes should be performed in house if we are to achieve clean energy that is economical as well as ecological. The Chinese call it “vertically integrated”. This means that the company must own the mining equipment for all the various different raw materials, own the processing and refining (and be under constant monitor in a nuclear division), own the metals and framework sections, pre-assembly sections, final assembly sections, sells department, and finally, installation and maintenance.

Renewables are cheaper than nuclear… until actual and real fossil fuels displacement of any significant SCALE is considered. Up to 20% or so “max grid” integration by the renewables should be no problem… use wind and solar for these “fill in” purposes (as they generally become cheaper as time progresses).
However, it will take almost a MILLION SQUARE MILES (of 15% efficient) solar with storage, to displace most all fossil fuels and nuclear, for powering a planetary civilization of 10,000,000,000 people at Western standards.

This is fully FIVE TIMES current net global power consumption (and 2% of the land). It is easily conceivable that such drastic solar coverage is much preferable than the accelerating combustion of fossil fuels… however, politically correct environmentalists don’t think so and won’t “allow for that”. There are many accounts of so called enviros blocking large scale solar and wind (and there may actually be just environmental cause in a few such large scale projects). Yet, with their unending and dizzying array of regulations, they also opt to prevent large scale nuclear, as well… and there are no other options at this time with the potential capable of even coming close to that of the big three:
Wind
Solar
Nuclear

We must NOT denounce any of the clean energy options! To do so is to promote LIMITATION for humanity, not only by outright restraint of additional clean energy sources, but by psychological processes that seek to repress the “other side”. We may agree that excess CO2 and depletion are serious global problems, but they will NEVER be solved if we all disagree on the means of remedy.

Using the truth of excess CO2 as an excuse to further the MYTH of limitation is evident in those agendas that would have us to believe that we need to reduce global energy generation. Sure, it is OK for the United States to conserve more (despite that country being a leader in efficiency developments), but it is not OK to expect all the developing countries to not develop!

Reverting to biofuels is like going back into the dark ages. Solar and wind <i>as they exist now</i> isn’t much better.
When enviro groups try to “inform” you that we must use less energy, ask yourself:
Do they sincerely want to reduce excess CO2?
Do they sincerely think that we have to live with less?
Do they live with less?
Do they not know about the already proven concept of melt down proof nuclear capable of powering the world many times over for many times less environmental degradation?

They may be using excess CO2 as an excuse to further their agenda:
Tax schemes
Product promotion (which is OK unless their product is “mandated” and expensive).
Top down political control via industrial, safety and trade regulations, to avert losses incurred by a free society with abundant energy and the ability to machine automate all goods for a fraction of the cost (put sarcastic smear on green alien face here).

These tactics can only benefit a small but selfish minority for a limited amount of time at a great expense for the rest of us!

The reader can be excused for not being aware of the complexities of the energy/excess CO2 issue, but any environmentalist that seeks to reduce energy input is a real threat to humanity. Ignorance of the issue is NOT an excuse for those that make it their job to mold public opinion in the direction of less energy resources, or to make laws which erroneously restrict the necessary increase of energy sources.

A popular myth perpetrated by “The Future is In Less” advocates is that technology will more than make up for the lack of power, and that more power means more environmental degradation.

Consider:
Developing nations need MORE power, no matter the level of their current efficiency.
The ability for technology to prevent degradation sometimes requires more power (such as trading in an efficient ozone hole causing CFC refrigerant for an environmentally safe but less efficient refrigerant).
Efficiency can reduce overall power requirements but can not side step the requirement to replace fossil fuels. An example is jevon’s paradox. As it becomes more efficient to extract a resource, it will become cheaper and thus will lead to even faster extraction rates. People might want to reduce mileage to save gasoline but they will drive more if gasoline prices go down or if the car gets a higher MPG. Instead of saving fuel, people may opt for the added convenience (such as trading in the smaller car for a larger one with the same MPG). Psychologically, people will not conserve any more than they have to, thus people will simply enjoy more benefit for the same price, and consumption will not decrease. Wouldn’t it be better to secure a source that can prevent environmental degradation?

The stated purpose of this paper is to:
Promote the required increase of available energy resources necessary to power a growing planetary civilization at a Western standard of living by promoting the development of the least expensive, most abundant source of CO2 free energy as soon as possible and to denounce the myth of limitation.

Any “actions”, “things” or “collectives” which seek to decrease available clean energy resources are a detriment to (and possible serious threat to the survival of) the human race, and even the biosphere itself.
The truth of excess CO2 must NOT become an excuse for any such to impose excessive taxes, raise energy costs, impose ill will or promote regimes tolerant of the disbanding of the inherent and inalienable rights of the individual.

None of these “behavior modification” tactics are needed in the resource rich 21st century (although necessary in a finite fuels “only” scenario)!

The biosphere can not withstand humanity in “depletion mode”. As chaos sets in, fossil fuels inefficiency, and subsequent biofuels depletions (aka complete de-forestation) would rapidly take place. Resource wars would soon follow.

It would take a global authoritarian order to absolve the chaos otherwise present during the depletion stage. This would come as a great expense to the standard of living to the BILLIONS of people (aka loss of rights).
Nuclear energy can actually provide the 5 times current global power requirements necessary to raise the standard of living up to Western standard for 10 billion people, if only it was allowed. We could have had a planetary civilization comparable to Star Trek by now (instead, we got stuck with the greenie aliens). When Alvin Weinberg invented the light water reactor, he was on to something… but when he figured out the molten salt reactor (MSR or LFTR), that was REALLY to good to be…

Allowed.

Please consider…
7,800,000,000 tons of coal,
2,700,000,000 tons of oil,
10,500,000,000,000 cubic feet of NG
and 67,000 tons of uranium
are consumed by humanity EVERY year… And these numbers are only going to grow.

Now, realize…
Less than
10,000 tons of thorium

would displace ALL THAT (yes, ALL of that) by direct coal replacement (for electricity), and by providing the extra electricity required to power billions of electric cars if fissioned in thousands of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.
This small amount of nuclear fuels would provide convenient LIQUID FUELS by use of its high process heat (by the conversion of water and air, into ammonia or methanol).
Automated mass production of EV batteries AND clean liquid fuels must be scaled up to global proportions in order to engage in the UNHINDERED economic growth required to stave off economic, natural and space borne disasters (not to mention human caused depletion and global warming/ocean acidification).

Continued use of fossil fuels will become burdensome to such necessary growth when CO2 emissions are taxed.

The nuclear closed cycle in a molten fuels reactor design is the quickest technological way to insuring continuous industrial processes necessary to power a growing planetary civilization once development of factory produced reactors is firmly established. It is also the least risky, as that design is melt down proof with very minimal wastes! Of course, there are some engineering dificulties, but nothing that prevented a fully operational test facility called the MSRE (at ORNLin the 60′s) from running for years. In fact, they shut it down every weekend! To say that a technology that enables nuclear to be turned on and off, regularly is not worthy of whatever disadvantages it may have is like saying airplanes are not worth the effort because of turbulence (greenie aliens fly all the time despite their excess CO2 wingprint).

A popular myth perpetrated by renewable and fossil fuel advocates state that the thorium fueled molten salt reactor “will take many decades” to develop. That is akin to stating that the Apollo mission “will also take many decades”. Note that the molten salt reactor was proven on a developmental level for many years up to that time. If we REALLY wanted the abundant clean energy from thorium, it should take LESS than a decade to re-develop (sadly, we don’t have transporters to beam the greenie aliens away).

The nasty fission products (not spent fuel) is actually less than 1/1,000,000th of the wastes involved with present fossil fuel sources. It is impossible at this time to sequester most all of the CO2 into geologically safe timescales. Acceptable mineral sequestration techniques could become automated and thus very much cheaper but still, no one will want to pay for the clean up process, any time soon.

So called carbon capture and storage (CCS) into depleted wells is not an acceptable option because there is no way to guarantee that the 100,000,000,000 tons or so tons of compressed CO2 would not leak back into the environment (and acidify water tables).

It is not only possible to contain 500,000 tons of nasty fission products at the global scale (assuming continuous closed cycle nuclear growth for over half a century) it is mandatory. It can, very simply, be ISOLATED from the environment (it will have to be). Machines can do it. By the time the containment vessels crack, the stuff inside will be radioactive FREE and should, by that time, be placed far beneath the water table, possibly in a tectonic plate “subduction” zone. It takes less than 500 years for it to decay down to below safe levels, not the tens of thousands it takes for spent fuel from the once through cycle (as from the LWR).

Unlike compressed CO2 stored in spent wells (CCS), this stuff is not under pressure.

Although thorium fueled molten salt reactors require the least amount of enriched fuel to start up, can fission spent fuel, and are efficient and meltdown proof, ordinary light water reactors have done a great job of displacing fossil fuels. France proves that a country can do it safely. So does the United States. The wastes should be fissioned in an Integral Fast Reactor or MSR, or can be buried under a plate subduction zone. The Integral Fast Reactor, have had developmental accidents but have not caused any serious radiation releases into the environment. Unlike today’s Light Water Reactor and the MSR, the IFR can also convert the huge stockpiles of depleted uranium 238 into electricity! Regulations must however, be present which prevents the isolation of plutonium from the mix. The PRISM concept was developed to do just that (but all of a sudden a bunch of greenie aliens descended and shut the whole complex down).

Eventually, humanity will NOT have to isolate the total of a few hundred thousand tons of nasty and radioactive fission products from the biosphere for hundreds of years. Eventually, humanity WILL achieve nuclear fusion and will power itself throughout all space/time (God willing). But first, we need to fully leverage the fission option to ensure required economic growth for continued scientific research in ALL fields because it requires huge amounts of energy to power humanity and our ambitions.

Sadly, it appears that there is a conspiracy to thwart this ultimate objective. Thankfully, no one dictator can be the head of such a conspiracy in today’s multi-faceted world.
However, complacency, ignorance and greed brought forth by millions of people who wish to, or are led to defeat the global scale up of clean and abundant energy, can usher the same insidious results.
The technology to become a prosperous type I global civilization, where no one is subject to poverty, has been thwarted because that knowledge has been around for DECADES. Now, it is time to promote the global scale up of clean and abundant energy with fervent persistence.

~realizing the full potential and experiencing the purpose of our existence~

Special interest backed enviros and all their silly “we can have ours but you can’t have yours” nonsense has since invaded the planet like a bunch of green aliens, somehow convincing the brainwashed minds from all corners of the land of make believe that the future of energy is in… less of it.

Less energy will NOT raise India, Africa, Asia and South America out of poverty. Less energy will not raise the developed world out of economic slumps, either. And less energy will not support the growth needed for continued tech progress. Less energy will not power the people and machinery needed to maintain basic infrastructure, running water, agriculture, road maitainence, the sewer system, garbage disposal, and MILLIONS of other processes benificial to the survival and comfort/entertainment/ mind growing of our species.

Less energy will not save the cute little polar bears either, because less energy makes more people (somewhere else) deplete fossil fuels even faster.

Less energy creates wars!

Fossil fuels has already been proven to cause not only global warming, but also ocean acidification AND political turmoil. Pollution, and adverse health issues (and bad tuna) resulting from the fossil fuels option are merely warning signs of the trouble yet to come if abundant, clean energy is not pursued at the global level.
Thermal expansion of the oceans and the drop in the pH levels of the oceans is EMPIRICAL evidence that excess CO2 is already altering the biosphere… of this entire planet!

Less energy creates global de-forestation!

Less energy will not make it easy to clean up our mess (especially if we must mine olivine on the order of the scale of the coal industry by automated machinery to reverse global warming and or ocean acidification).

Less energy will NEVER open up the final frontier and the unlimited (and as of yet, unknown) possibilities available to humanity. Less energy will definitely NOT stop an errant asteroid, or a super volcano. Only abundant, clean and safe energy will give us the capability to learn how to develop these necessary technologies and to provide power to use these technologies.

Less energy will not save the hydrocarbons either. We will need them for roads, plastics, lubricants, etc. If we stop the global frenzy to combust hydrocarbons, these much longer lived uses can be sustained for hundreds of years, giving humanity time to learn how to synthesize “anything”.

We need to rip the guts out of any agenda that seeks to reduce global power capacity :)
“The Future is In Less” is an insidious and ignorant trend. If it is accepted by the general population, we will surely suffer severe consequenses… at the global level!

We already have the tech, now we need to…
PROMOTE AND IMPLEMENT ABUNDANT CLEAN ENERGY BY ALL MEANS POSSIBLE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
http://www.steamtablesonline.com/electricity/electricity-installed-capacity.aspx#.UrFbKdJDvE1
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/units.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

And check out the thorium playlist… http://thoriumremix.com/th/

Thanks for reading and considering about how the argument for global warming (even though most probably correct, as is evidenced by some 95% of scientists) can be used as an excuse to limit humanity by not including a global scale up of machine mass produced solar, wind, batteries and factory molten salt nuclear reactors (or better) in popular solutions.

~realizing the full potential and experiencing the purpose of our existence~

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Fossil Free… How?

No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it…
Albert Einstein

Click on “fireofenergy” to link to my list of real experts on the MSR and LFTR.

Ever heard of excess CO2 and excess carbonic acid on a global scale?

I was reluctant to believe, so I found out for my self. The ppm CO2 has risen by 80 in just my lifetime alone. Thus, by burning fossil fuels on an increasingly global scale, we are altering the biosphere of an entire planet. Nature has provided the right amount of CO2 to keep the planet from becoming a “snowball earth”. Humanity has almost doubled it (when considering how much the oceans have absorbed). Thus, too much will cause serious alterations to the biosphere of an entire planet.

THIS IS SERIOUS !

Not just warming, but probably more importantly, ocean acidification, which is the conversion of excess CO2 into carbonic acid in contact with the oceans.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ocean+acidification&rlz=1C1CHMI_enUS309US309&oq=ocean+acid&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j5j0j69i61j69i62.3259j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Lately, there has been talk about global warming not being so bad. I didn’t think that it was already happening, either. Sadly, there are already signs. The ocean is already swelling despite natural variations foretelling more serious events yet to come. Mere sea level rise is the least of our worries…

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059986192 and http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Understanding_Sea_Level_Change.pdf

Bad tuna, caused by global coal emissions.  Such fall on algae, then really small fish eat that, then medium small fish eats 100 of those, you get the picture… Actually, tuna isn’t tainted as much as other large fish, but still, this proves that we MUST switch to a better energy source!

“People are being told to eat less fish”

http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/plants-mercury-poison.html

DEVELOP THE LEAST EXPENSIVE CARBON FREE AND SAFE SOURCE.

Natural gas can help in the meantime, by displacing coal because it is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. But NG is no cure for excess CO2.

Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant. However, in absolute terms it does contribute substantially to global carbon emissions, and this contribution is projected to grow.

http://www.celsias.com/article/cleaner-natural-gas-new-ways-reduce-greenhouse-gas/

Consider, that if all the world’s coal plants were switched over to NG, less than half of the CO2 from coal would be emitted, because it is burned more efficiently at higher temperatures… That is, about 34% for coal and 39% for NG.

http://anga.us/issues-and-policy/power-generation/clean-and-efficient#.Ugbf7dKsiSo  And up to 60% for Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

Also, NG is used to back up renewable energy (RE) sources.

A large NG power plant is designed to provide additional electrical supply above the baseload (which is provided by other power plants such as coal or nuclear, 24/7). This is needed when there is more demand, as when people turn on the AC.

Large solar can effectively reduce the need for these peaker NG powered plants, unless  it’s cloudy.  Sometimes, more NG is used than if there was no RE system on site because of the inefficiency required to ramp up peaker plants, as with the solar farm with intermittent clouds in the daytime. I have not yet found a link to back up this claim but it is obvious that until cheap storage is used, NG (and other fossil fuels) will be used to back up wind and solar at various different levels.

DEVELOP THE LEAST EXPENSIVE CARBON FREE AND SAFE SOURCE.

The following is an incomplete list of all the low carbon energy sources available to humanity as has been proven up to the present:

  • Tidal
  • Wave
  • Ocean current
  • OTEC
  • Algae
  • Ethanol and other biofuels
  • Geothermal
  • Wind
  • Solar
  • Nuclear

There are many variations, especially in the “Big Three”, wind, solar and nuclear.

Solar Energy

dish Unless noted otherwise, images made by Bryce, paint shop pro and by me, years ago

Consider: an all out theoretical installed solar global power system.

PV could in theory be stored in batteries, but we all know that just isn’t happening anytime soon on a global scale. The molten salt storage scheme has already been developed and proven, but not yet on a cost efficient scale of economy because it is not cheaper than fossil fuels.

Now, just how much would it cost to plaster the world’s deserts with a bunch of mirrors, a generator (hopefully, the Brayton cycle turbine) and heat storage? Keep in mind that the cost for molten salt (there are now ideas about molten glass for heat storage) is way less than batteries and requires far less space than pumped hydro per unit of energy stored. In fact, the storage for a power tower is less than that of the (more common)  CSP trough because it is of a higher temperature and therefore requires less of it.

According to IEA, total world energy supply was about 144,000 TWh (from wikipedia). Capacity factors for a good CSP tower is up to 70% (estimated). I will assume 50%.

144,000 / 8760 (hours in a year) = 16.5 x 2 (for 50% CF) = 33TW CSP towers needed to be installed = 33 billion KW (or 33,000 one gigawatt plants). At (a whopping) $10 per watt of installed capacity, that’s $330 trillion!

But (and this is a big “however”) the power does not have to be reduced by a factor of 2/3rds to account for the thremodynamic losses as in the real world’s combustion processes, thus this would be a WAY overbuild.

Another way to look at it is to divide the aprox 500 quads of total primary world energy consumption by 3.414 (which is btu/Wh) to get 146,000 TWh. This number accounts for ALL energy input. Again, 2/3rds of that is wasted as heat even before going through the power lines because of the inefficiency of converting heat to useful power.

With further efficiency improvements (like electric cars, led lighting, passive solar site planning for houses, more insulation for houses, etc) the total price tag should be less than $100T. But wait, IRENA puts estimates of costs to about $5.70 (not $10 as I had) after economies of scale are figured in (assuming 2020).

Thus, about one hundred thousand 100MW CSP towers costing about $60 trillion (plus financing) is most probably, the only way any renewables will provide 24/7 power to replace fossil fuels.

http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Analysis-CSP.pdf

That is about how much a concentrated solar power tower system (with heat storage) would cost to power the entire global population, complete with the energy to charge electric cars for everyone, as based on 100,000 100MW plants at a 50% Capacity Factor.

solartube1An idea I thought of many years ago… A parabolic trough sized down to a tube

60 Trillion Dollars…

Here, I seek to trivialize this huge amount of money.

60,000,000,000,000 divided by 7,000,000,000 billion people = less than $8,600 each.

We could add in another 60 trillion dollars to account for finance charges, and still, that would only be 3.58 per person for twenty years per work day.

How much does it cost the average person for all energy expenses? The average household spends over $5,000 per year…

http://www.energyhog.org/adult/pdf/EnergyFacts.pdf

Divided by the 2.2 people (or so) per household, that breaks down to $9.46 per household per work day indefinitely. Americans currently pay over 2.5 times the amount it would cost to provide a total global solar power infrastructure if every person on the planet chipped in.

Granted, every person on the planet can NOT help pay for this. In fact, just 20% enjoy about 80% the wealth.

http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Global_Inequality.pdf

Each of “us” in the top of this wealth bracket would have to pay close to 5 times… or about $14 per working day. Surely, developing China can afford to pitch in more.

They will likely do so by use of nuclear power (if not CSP)

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China–Nuclear-Power/#.UgfQ6tLvHE0. And

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html

However, even with money, we would have to build most of the solar with fossil fuels because it takes up to a year just for the CSP (and wind power) to recoup all energy costs associated with them and it takes about three years for solar panels. Imagine setting aside that much time’s worth of solar energy, just to build itself, double the time for a doubling, and extra time for replacing the old. Not happening in today’s hurried world…

DEVELOP THE LEAST EXPENSIVE CARBON FREE AND SAFE SOURCE.

Nuclear Fission

I understand that my family receives more radiation than most because we live at a 7,000 foot level. We have (unintentionally) chose to remove over a whole MILE of atmospheric protection from radiation. I never heard of anyone living around a nuclear plant to be subject to radiation (unless there was a continued lack of water to the solid fueled core).

It seems we are mired in a debate which lacks scientific reasoning, that is either diffuse and intermittent renewables OR fossil fueled depletion and certain devastation. Nuclear is left out because of the media scare tactics, political misrepresentation and overall scientific illiteracy (and concern about the very real possibility of and actual meltdowns).

thor

 

Just 1 ton of thorium could power a city for a year… From Energy from Thorium

A meltdown proof version, MUST become mass produced. I believe we need only about 60,000 100MW of such, to power a growing planet. The next best energy option, CSP towers with molten salt storage, would require almost twice as many, necessitating WAY more land, powerlines, international grid policies (for those with weak renewable energy sources), and even WAY more replacements. Yes, nuclear plants last at least twice as long as wind and solar (also consider the damage caused to the mirrors from just one powerful sand storm).

Price, even in the face of today’s advanced machine automation, overshadows CSP.

So does the effects of excess CO2. Consider that as the biosphere begins to fry, weather patterns will become more extreme (and possibly,  more sandstorm damage to the solar installations).

We must seek to inform that the physical and chemical effects of excess CO2 is real, and that there IS a way to overshadow fossil fuels with a much superior form of unlimited low carbon energy.

There are many different ways to split the atom.

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/

http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/index.htm   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

In the following link, is a conservation at Climate CoLab considering the pros and cons between Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors also known as Integral Fast Reactors and even a GE demontrated “PRISM” compared to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, both of which are passively safe, and which leave minuscule (but highly radioactive) wastes for a period of time on order of 1,000x less than that of current Light Water Reactor wastes.

http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304005/tab/COMMENTS

And here’s “the book” on IFR’s called Prescription for the Planet by Tom Blees… It’s already a few years old…

http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

However, it does not promote the molten salt reactor. The following link is a pdf slide presentation that calls it when it comes to which nuclear, which clean liquid fuels, how much energy to do so, and other pertinent information necessary to save civilization (and possibly, even the biosphere as we know it)!

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/nuclear-ammonia-2011-sendrev.pdf

Conservation

In this age of fossil fuels, we should conserve. Turn off the lights, plan driving trips to maximize total efficiency, slow down when a light is red so that you won’t have to waste momentum by having to stop when you get there (because by that time, the light could be green), use less water in the bathroom, drive to the recycle place only when it is already on the way for another errand, eat less (to improve health as well), etc.

Efficiency is also a must. Soon, led lighting will be almost as cheap as the fluorescent, but twice as efficient (and without the mercury). Electric cars, even if powered by our current mix of dirty electricity, emit less CO2 than internal combustion engines and gasoline.

roundbldg
This is a future 3D city where electric cars drive on every level

A gallon of gasoline produces 8,887 grams of CO2 when burned in a vehicle (EPA vehicle emissions). Producing the equivalent of 10 kWhrs of electricity, including the total life-cycle from mining, construction, transport and burning, emits about 9,750 g of CO2 when generated in a coal-fired power plant, 6,000 g when generated in a natural gas plant, 900g from a hydroelectric plant, 550 g from solar, but only 150 g each from wind and nuclear (UK Office of Science and Technology 2006).

Add in the fact that not all of our electricity is coal powered, and they are surely cleaner. Other efficiency measures include passive solar house siting…

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_passive_solar_energy_book.html?id=ftBSAAAAMAAJ

Insulation, smart grids and traffic updates and so on. Efficiency alone can also reduce many full blown coal power plants.

However, efficiency alone is NOT going to stop excess CO2, in fact, it will only cause more of it because it enables the entire world a higher standard of living which offsets its many benefits (this claim is not backed up but is inferred by increased emissions concurrent with increased efficiency at the global level, such as Americans trading their efficiency gains for larger vehicles). Neither, can we can conserve till the last drop.

dtf

The Venus Project

Summery

DEVELOP THE LEAST EXPENSIVE CARBON FREE AND SAFE SOURCE.

Only on all out deployment of fossil free electrical sources in conjunction with efficiency measures could ever stop excess CO2. Energy will also be needed to “clean up” the excess CO2. Concentrated Solar thermal Power towers with molten salt storage are the least expensive non nuclear way to power up to 10 billion people at a decent standard of living. Safe, meltdown proof nuclear (such as MSR) would be less expensive if mass produced like jet airplanes because it is far more energy dense and requires far less mass and land for the necessary low carbon global capacity build up.

Excess regulation, laws, fees, permits, taxes, enviro hype, mass media manipulations, profiting from mass scientific illiteracy, etc (which prohibits CSP or MSR by finding, and amplifying “trivial bad things” on such) should therefore be deemed as an evil twin of fossil fuels emissions. Research about the safety of nuclear may still be required, though, as an even better reactor design may result!

Biofry? is a continuing process…

Come back often and thanks for reading!

Most nuclear plants are not load followers…

In France, however, nuclear power plants use load following. French PWRs use “grey” control rods, in order to replace chemical shim, without introducing a large perturbation of the power distribution. These plants have the capability to make power changes between 30% and 100% of rated power, with a slope of 5% of rated power per minute. Their licensing permits them to respond very quickly to the grid requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant

DEVELOP THE LEAST EXPENSIVE CARBON FREE AND SAFE SOURCE.

And tell everybody, lest the biosphere fries!

10billion

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment