The Energy Blog

Nuclear Power: A Change for the Better

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush shared his opinions on nuclear power in the Ocala, Fl  Star Banner:

"Change" seems to be the operative word this election season. It's on the lips of political contenders and on the minds of the voters. But politics isn't the only arena where change is in the air. Change is happening in the world of energy as well, specifically when it comes to nuclear energy.

Against the backdrop of a larger discussion about how we will meet our future energy demand while keeping our environment clean, nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance. Americans are beginning to shed the emotional debate about nuclear energy and are taking a practical look at why it is essential to meeting our future energy demand.

They like what they see. The support for nuclear energy is diverse. It's one of the few issues in Washington, D.C., these days that feels bipartisan. Even former naysayers are coming around to the merits of nuclear.

There are now 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States that are safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity - notably, without producing any of the harmful greenhouse gases some believe to be a major factor in climate change. Americans are beginning to recognize that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening mentality. And it offers the most proven means for our country to achieve much needed energy security.

Yergin: Climate Change and Energy are Converging into New Era of Clean Energy

The sometimes outspoken Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) and executive vice president, IHS Inc., spoke at the 2008 National Governors Association (NGA) Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 23. Some of his remarks may be of interest to readers of TEB.

“High energy prices, climate change and energy security are converging as the new engine driving the development of clean energy, There is a major shift in public opinion towards clean energy, which is being bolstered by the growing conviction that new carbon policies will reshape the competitive landscape of the global energy business.”  . . .

Citing CERA’s new study, Crossing the Divide: the Future of Clean Energy, Yergin said that renewable power and biofuels could be supplying as much as 16 percent of the global electric and transportation needs by 2030.  . . .

On current oil prices, he added, “A major reason for the current leap to around $100 a barrel is the economy – but now a weak U.S. economy, rather than the strong global economy that has been so important the last few years. A slowing U.S. economy, rate cuts by the Federal Reserve and expectations of more, and a weak U.S. dollar – along with the reappearance of inflation around the world – are driving investors into oil and other commodities. Instead of the traditional ‘flight to the dollar’ during times of uncertainty, we are seeing a ‘flight to oil.’”  . . .

Two of his key insights from the Crossing the Divide study may be of special interest to readers:

Renewable power technologies are poised for substantial growth – Wind will make the largest gains, followed by solar power and biomass — despite near-term bottlenecks in wind turbine manufacturing, supply shortages in silicon and competitive pressures from escalating component costs.

Conventional emission-free technologies – Nuclear and hydroelectric generation will account for most of the clean energy impact for the next decade, and almost half the gross clean power additions by 2030. The coal resource base and utilization in the United States and China will create a powerful drive to develop “clean coal” technologies.

Shell CEO Presents Two Scenarios For the Future of Energy

The chief executive of Shell has posted this article on Shell's new energy scenarios. I was made aware of it by The Oil Drum, who first posted it at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3548 and I thought it was worth repeating for your comments. They had a large number, 153, of mostly very insightful comments at the time of this posting. 

The article supports the peak oil theory, as I envision it. They defined it as the time that easy accessible oil will no longer be able to keep up with demand, their estimate being 2015.  I interpret that as meaning that heavy oil, as in the tar sands of Canada and the heavy oil in Venezuela, and oil shale are not significant sources of oil by 2015 and that their addition will cause significant increases in the price of oil which will have an effect on demand. The exact date is not that important, but it is meaningful that they predict a relatively near date, within the next 10 years.

They also predict that A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen.  I think they underemphasize this important factor in reducing our consumption of oil, and believe that hydrogen will not play that important a role. I think a very aggressive development of PHEVs, EVs and biofuels combined with North Americas' (USA, Mexico and Canada) remaining reserves of oil should be able to supply all our needs to power our vehicles and have some expensive oil left over to export to other countries before 2100, hopefully by 2050.

The statements that more nuclear power will be required and that carbon capture and sequesteration (CCS) must be required on coal powered power plants in all developed countries are right in line with my thinking.  In the interim period, until renewable power can replace all aging nuclear and coal powered plants, these power sources will be required, no matter how much power is saved by increased efficiency in the home and in industry. From the economic point of view nuclear power has the clear advantage over coal when CCS is required on coal plants. However there is opposition to nuclear in some quarters and will be as long as the threats of proliferation and problems with waste disposal remain issues.  To me the ideal situation would be thorium fueled plants with fuel recycling.  However it will be a very long time before there is any consensus on that.

The complete text of the article, as appears on the Shell website, is given below. The bold facing is mine.

Two Energy Futures

* By Jeroen van der Veer

By 2100, the world’s energy system will be radically different from today’s. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy, too, will have a place. Humans will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.

Where the Presidential Canidates Stand on Energy Policy

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has published a comparison of the energy policy positions of the 2008 presidential candidates, which range from environmentally responsible to business-as-usual.

Of the major candidates, Hilary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama have strong energy policy positions while John McCain has a much weaker policy. Mitt Romney has a very weak positions on energy policy. Of the major candidates only Rudy Giuliani has not articulated an energy policy, except that he supports liquid coal, according to the LCV.

Study the League of of Conservation Voters chart on where candidates stand on energy policy and form you own opinion on who most conforms to your way of thinking.

Kansas Turns Down Coal Power Plant Because of CO2 Emissions

An article in the Washington Post reports, on what could be a major decision in the fight against global warming, that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment became the first government agency in the United States to cite carbon dioxide emissions as the reason for rejecting an air permit for a proposed coal-fired electricity generating plant, saying that the greenhouse gas threatens public health and the environment. . . .

It may be the first of a series of similar state actions inspired by a Supreme Court decision in April that asserted that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide should be considered pollutants under the Clean Air Act. . . . more

Update, 12:34 am:

This is not the only coal plant in trouble, as this article in the Austin American Statemen reports:  At least 16 coal-fired power plant proposals nationwide have been scrapped in recent months and more than three dozen have been delayed as utilities face increasing pressure due to concerns over global warming and rising construction costs. . . . more

Update, 1:48 am:

In Energy and Capital Jeff Siegel wrote: This past Tuesday, American Electric Power Company agreed to a $4.6 billion settlement over pollution controls at its power plants. The company will also have to shell out $15 million in civil penalties and $60 million in cleanup and mitigation costs. . . . more

If this precedent is followed, and it will be cited by environmentalists in future applications for air quality permits for future coal powered power plants, we may not need additional legislation to require carbon capture and sequestration, unless a law is passed exempting carbon dioxide from the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  The later would be a very unpopular law with citizens and, I believe, from Democrats and without much support from Republicans in an election year.  Until this is straighted out in appeals courts, it looks like a big win for nuclear power and renewables as utilities will be less willing to take a chance on coal powered power plants. This will also be a big boon for wind power and thermal solar in the near future, until PV solar becomes more competitive. The fact is that coal power is getting more expensive as many other sources are becoming less expensive.

DOE Loan Guarantee Program Regulations Issued

Biopact also reported that DOE has announced that the final regulations for its loan guarantee program have been issued. This paves the way for selection and funding of clean energy projects including the cellulosic ethanol projects that had been selected earlier. Limited funding is available now, as I understand it, $2 billion has been authorized which should be enought for the 16 projects that have been selected for final review.  Congress currently is considering the Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Budget request for $9 billion in loan guarantee authority and $8.4 million to run the Loan Guarantee office.   more in Biopact ...

Bodman Speaks on Transportation Fuels

In an interview on CNBC a few minutes ago, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman responding to a question about what he saw for the future supply of power for the transportation market said that he saw solar power, wind power, plug-in hybrids using solar and wind power, and biofuels such as ethanol and butanol as being the future power sources.

I view this response remarkable in two respects 1) the mention of plug-ins with such importance and without (the apparent need for) any attempt to explain what they were and 2) the mention of butanol as an important biofuel.  This represents a change in the administrations attitude over the past couple of years as plug-ins and butanol were not in their vocabulary before that.  This points out the success of the efforts of CalCars (California Cars Initiative) and Plug in Partners in promoting plug-in hybrid vehicles as well as the efforts of the various biofuel advocate groups.

"Facing the Hard Truths about Energy"

“Accumulating risks to the supply of reliable, affordable energy” require an integrated national strategy, according to a major new report by the National Petroleum Council (NPC).

The 18-month study of global energy to 2030 involved more than 350 experts from diverse backgrounds and organizations—the majority of them from outside the oil and gas industry.

A list of five core strategies and the hard truths about the global energy future give an indication of the point of view of the report.

The report identifies five core strategies for meeting future energy challenges:

• Moderate the growing demand for energy by increasing efficiency of transportation, residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
• Expand and diversify production from clean coal, nuclear, biomass, other renewables, and unconventional oil and natural gas; moderate the decline of conventional domestic oil and gas production; and increase access for development of new resources.
• Integrate energy policy into trade, economic, environmental, security, and foreign policies; strengthen global energy trade and investment; and broaden dialogue with both producing and consuming nations to improve global energy security.
• Enhance science and engineering capabilities and create long-term opportunities for research and development in all phases of the energy supply and demand system.
• Develop the legal and regulatory framework to enable carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). In addition, as policymakers consider options to reduce CO2 emissions, provide an effective, global framework for carbon management, including establishment of a transparent, predictable, economy-wide cost for CO2 emissions.

Senate Nixes Clean Coal & Nuclear in RPS

National Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) legislation proposed by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), which included clean coal technology and nuclear power in addition to sources of renewable energy such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and tidal, was defeated in the U.S. Senate on Friday 56-29.

The legislation would have been an alternative to a proposal introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) which calls for an RPS requiring 15 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. to come from renewables by 2020.

Domenci claimed that Bingamans plan was too expensive costing over $175 billion, while industry experts claimed that adding nuclear and clean coal would weaken the the RPS.

A study conducted by the EIA concluded that the increase in renewable generation stimulated by Bingaman's proposal primarily displaces coal-fired generation. By 2030, coal generation is 3086 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) with the RPS compared with 3330 billion kWh in the reference case, a reduction of some 7%. Coal generation is still expected to grow significantly from 2000 billion kWh in 2005. Nuclear generation is reduced by less than 5%, to 856 billion kWh with the RPS from 896 billion kWh in the reference case. As with coal, this still represents significant growth relative to 2005 generation levels.

Without the RPS, CO2 emissions are projected to rise to 3338 million tonnes by 2030, from some 2375 million tonnes in 2005. With the RPS policy, CO2 emissions are projected at almost 3116 million tonnes in 2030, about 6.7% less than the reference case, but still substantially higher than in 2005. Emissions of regulated sulphur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions are not expected to significantly change with this policy because they are limited by existing programs.

The Senate Energy Bill

NPR.org, June 14, 2007 · The controversial energy bill now on the Senate floor takes a different approach than the bill pushed through by a Republican Senate in 2005. That measure sought to increase domestic oil production through subsidies and other incentives. With Democrats now in charge, the new bill focuses on decreasing consumption of oil and gasoline. Here's a look at the bill's major provisions:  . . . continued