A question about climate change/global warming.

It's not complete combustion I am worried about, its everything else. I wonder how big the catalytic converter and how much platinum it would need to make any ammonia combustion engine truly pollution free at the tailpipe.

esquire got me ready for a world of nuclear energy

Evidently one can also use the ammonia fuel as an active reagent to do a complete reduction of any NOx incomplete combustion products. I'm really not terribly familiar with the chemistry.

I did think it was an interesting alternative to methanol, or much worse, gas-to-liquids & coal-to-liquids as a short term solution as international market crude plummets 2013 and on. The automobile population turns over only once every 14+ years (in a good economy). Even if every car sold was a plug-in hybrid, it'll be a long time before ICE only cars are off the road.

Ammonia, methanol, gas-to-liquids/coal liquefaction, oil shale, nuclear...

How about conservation? Public Transit? Car-pooling? Teleworking? Sweaters?

I understand the pressure to maintain the status quo lifestyle of the West is overwhelming, but I'm much more comfortable pushing efficiency and conservation in tandem with a strong price on carbon, ideally with a double-dividend mechanism in place to offer incentives to lower-income people.

Z_S, you're preaching the Climate Protestor line! Hence, a line that is both OTM and slightly doomed. You get all sorts of right-wing/libertarian assholes all 'HOW DARE THEY CONTROL OUR LIVES' and you're all 'nonono you can do what you like just have some respect for your planet and show a bit of maturity/reserve' and they're all 'FASCISTS' and everyone is unhappy

The right to have a Hummer and a massive fucking mansion for a 4-person family is a bit like the right to defend one's home with automatic weaponry tbh - nobody with a conscience would take advantage of such a right, because it is inhuman and not within the standards of our current society - and if it could be challenged then only bastards who don't belong in society would react negatively - they are still free to do so much fucking awesome stuff with their lives - if they are narrow-minded it is their fault they are suffering

Z S, those will be done too, first. Everyone in the room agrees conservation is the cheapest energy out there.

Its just that some people on places like the Oil Drum are looking at scenarios in which while crude production drops 3%/annum 2013-on, international exports drop 8-9%. We (in the U.S.) have an absolutely enormous misallocation of capital in suburban sprawl that won't be replaced or be repurposed in the neccessary timeframe. The trick isn't just getting from A to B, its getting from A to B without serious collapses in the economy and production of food etc. Finding liquid fuel alternatives for the existing fleet of ICE vehicles is part of the transition.

We have the technology right now to make internal combustion powered vehicles significantly more efficient right now. All it will take is stricter legislation. I hope Obama or california institutes a serious CAFE standard soon. this is without public transport, densifying cities or even asking people to change their behaviour all that much. It's shaping choices and preferences.

The problem with ammonia, hydrogen electric and other alternative fuel vehicles is the massive infrastructure that will be needed to support them just isn't there and it seems ridiculous to invest in it when we can use today's technology, legislation and the existing infrastructure to make savings starting right now.

We need to start cutting emissions right now so lets start with the things we can do right now.

I mean, there is so much low hanging fruit lets grab that first.

esquire got me ready for a world of nuclear energy

― born loser (CaptainLorax), Sunday, December 20, 2009 8:50 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The only thing McCain said during the campaign that I liked (and he probably wasn't serious about it) was the idea of a new Manhattan Project for clean energy. Clean nuclear would indeed solve the world's energy problems.

What about better solar panels? They harness so little of the energy that hits them, are there any good ideas about increasing that?

do I have to mention Desertec again?

Lots of money invested into this idea. An idea which is bright but which requires quite a lot of international diplomacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec

Who's going to pay for that?

Clean nuclear would indeed solve the world's energy problems.

Too bad new nuclear electricity, ie, building new plants, is one of the most expensive options currently available. And unlike a host of other low-carbon alternatives, the cost curve isn't bending down over time for nuclear.

Btw, what is "clean nuclear" as opposed to just "nuclear"? There's a clean version that doesn't involve storing nuclear waste?

Z_S OTM again. Nuclear energy isn't clean, oh no. Until fusion happens, that is.

Ed, a load of German banks have pledged billions of euros towards that idea, and it'll take a bit of governmental support, but I think it could be feasible...

Nuclear waste disposal for light-water reactors is more a matter of politics than geology. There are plenty of deep salt domes on the Gulf coast that are intrinsically a lot more resistant to ground water seepage than Yucca mountain, and the places in the world we could just drill under some igneous province overlaying sediment and drop or pump pretty much any amount down with no chance of any returning to the biosphere in 10s of thousands of years

But in terms of clean nuclear, I think one of the most interesting ideas are the molten fuel Thorium reactors, in which thorium is mixed in sodium and bred into U-233. This is nice because there's a LOT more thorium than U-235 in the world, and the waste products of the thorium-U233 cycle aren't nuclear proliferation risks. The U.S. had a molten salt reactor experiment for several decades demonstrating the concept, and evidently a Japanese consortium led by Fuji is engineering a modular production version.

Will any of the "clean nuclear" be ready for large-scale deployment in the next 20 years, when the big energy crunch is likely to occur in the next half decade? And will anything change in the next decade or two that will make nuclear remotely cost-effective without massive subsidies?

Nuclear IS cost effective without massive subsidies. See the experience in France. The problem the first time around in the U.S. was that there were not pre-approved standardized designs, so every build was a bit unique, every regulatory change required a substantial reengineering and delay. In France, they adapted a Westinghouse and built dozens of reactors to the same design. The U.S. decided to adopt that policy only after Three Mile Island and the subsequent issues with public opinion. So we're all breathing in dozens of times more radioactivity from coal plants than we would have had we went the nuclear route decades ago.

had we gone obv...

To be honest, derelict, a good chunk of my stance on the high cost of new nuclear power comes from Joe Romm at ClimateProgress, and pieces such as this article, which among other things notes that:

New nuclear power plants are currently far and away the most expensive form of carbon free power you can (try to) buy...

The most detailed independent cost estimate of nuclear power published this year — here on Climate Progress by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance — puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates!

... Time magazine noted that nuclear plants’ capital costs are “out of control,” concluding:

"Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget."

This aligns with a lot of cost estimates that I read on nuclear, but I'd be more than happy to read through anything that convincingly argues that new nuclear power isn't expensive.

(On clean energy) Btw, that esquire article did say that all the nuclear waste could be taken care of pretty well z_s

Yes, cost is the problem initially

Z S, there's a problem comparing intermittant renewable energy without integral storage and base-load generation plants that would be competive with nuclear. I suspect concentrating solar thermal with enough heat storage for off-peak generation is very close to competitive with new build nuclear for base-load, but we'll have to see how the Spanish pilots work out.

This OECD/IEA joint report found the levelized costs at a 5% finance cost in $USD/MWh:

nuclear energy: 21-31
natural gas: 37-60
coal: 25-50

At the same finance cost, and correcting for availability/capacity factor:

wind: 35-95 (but most below 60)
hydroelectricity: 40-80
solar: 150-175 in US southwest, 300+ in much of Europe

As renewables go, there's no question wind is the way to go. And if we had a large enough network of say the 765 kv DC transmission lines so that wind power generated in blustery North Dakota could be used in Chicago, then wind would probably be competitive with nuclear.

Btw, what is "clean nuclear" as opposed to just "nuclear"? There's a clean version that doesn't involve storing nuclear waste?

― Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

There isn't one that I know of, yet. Which is why we would need the Manhattan Project-like endeavor in the first place...

Finding a use for the waste, or using radioactive material which breaks down into non-radioactive or non-dangerous material would be the way around this problem, and as you see people are working on it.

Nuclear IS cost effective without massive subsidies. See the experience in France

you had me until you said France. EDF and Areva have received massive subsides and protections from competition.

That IEA nuclear LCOE figure just does not ring true with me, and plenty of other studies would put it much higher. No nuclear plant has ever been built on time and on budget. The Finish experience is bearing this out. I am not opposed to more nuclear, I am just sceptical as to how much and how quickly it can make a contribution.

Those Gulfcoast salt domes seem to be the solution to everything; Gas storage CAES, CCS.

http://www.energy.gov/news/1500.htm

The principal findings of the Chicago study demonstrate that future nuclear power plants in the United States can be competitive with either natural gas or coal. Whereas the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for coal is $33 to $41 per MWh and $35 to $45 per MWh for gas-fired production, new nuclear plants would have costs of $31 to $46 per MWh once early plant costs are absorbed.

That doesn't mean what you think it does. They're using the same calculation as for the coal and gas plants, and as the OECD/IEA report did for renewables, amortizing the so-called 'overnight construction costs' over the the expected life of the plant. With a low enough finance cost (OECD used 5% per annum), up front costs can seem pretty reasonable.

The only reason it works, of course, is that uranium is dirt cheap with repect to the energy that can be extracted compared to coal and gas. All the costs are up-front, with fuel amounting to around 6-10% of the levelized cost. For coal and natural gas, fuel amounts to 70+% of the cost.

On the other hand, there's a good chance uranium prices have been depressed for the past 10+ years as 45% of U.S. demand has been met by decommissioned Soviet weapons (and 5% from U.S. weapons). That cosy agreement ends in 2013, so uranium prices could go substantially higher to bring marginal supply in.

I understand the LCOE methodology very well, and I don't see how you can get to those figures for Nuclear. I've combed through that IEA report and can't find too much as fault although I find that pricing non-fuel O&M in power rather than energy to be somewhat odd. Figures I have seen put non-fuel O&M at around $14/MWh. OK so these are figures for 1996 from a 1999 study but I can't see that having fallen much.

$1500/kW over 40 years at 5% Discount rate 85% capacity factor is around $12/MWh. Fuel from the above study is $6/MWh. That's already $32/MWh in 1999 dollars. This doesn't factor in waste handling and storage or decommissioning.

really interesting account of why copenhagen failed by someone who was in the room as the deal was (un)done:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

that's not really interesting, sorry

Saying that Copenhagen was even an effort to succeed at something is a lot more interesting, but only in the diagnosis of mental illness.

oh well, you're clearly the expert. but i thought it was interesting a) to read an inside account of how global summits play out, particularly seeing how china uses its growing power, and b) that china blocked western countries from making their own 80 per cent target in emissions reduction, even though it wouldn't affect developing nations.

I apologize.

You have to admit, though, this whole "Copenhagen" hoo-ha is a bit of a paper tiger in the larger debate.

hey joe, i thought that was pretty interesting, thanks for posting it, not really sure whats up kenans butt

I read that too, it was a bit depressing. What the heck happens next?

not really sure whats up kenans butt

I admit my tone was ill-advised, politically. I should have paid more attention to my status in the eyes of ILX, and not negotiated with max for said political status.

That article is not about the climate, the control of emissions, or anything like it.

After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Oh go fucking drain your pussy, it's hugely swollen.

did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or what

Yes I did.

Look... Copenhagen is a joke, no matter what country you're in. For that matter, Kyoto was a joke. We're not talking about treaties and agreements, we're talking about developing countries utilizing the tech they have vs. falling behind. Meanwhile, it's also about the US investing in the tech we have, making it standard, and phasing out dirty energy. This isn't about making agreements. It never was, and it never is.

i dont see what that has to do with being mean about joes article

I apologized earlier, because you're right.

cool sounds like were all covered here

Who wants cookies? :)

now that sounds like an agreement to me

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/uploads/2007/10/va_treaty.jpg

ha! Bit tentative, that.

I meant you no personal offense, joe, and I apologize again. I just tend to get heated up about what I feel is people (not you) missing the point entirely.

By staging publicity stunts like Copenhagen, for instance.

jeez louise

It looks to me like a polite enquiry from someone concerned about climate change. Delingpole, however, saw it as a "nauseating email" which must have come from a "disgusting eco-fascist organisation", though he didn't know which organisation this might be. His post was headlined "Conservative candidates stalked by eco bullies". Much worse, he published the man's name and home address.

Delingpole's bootboys took the hint and immediately swung into action. Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man's telephone number and email address, a photo of his house ("Note all the recycling going on in his front garden"), his age and occupation. Then they sought to tell him just what a low opinion they had of "stalking" and "bullying".

Here is the "nauseating email", btw:

"Dear Edwin Northover

I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action.

I hope you can reassure me that you recognise the importance and success of climate change action by the UK government at home and internationally.

Can you clarify that:

You accept that climate change is caused by human activity?

Do you support the target to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2020?

Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change?

Kind Regards, *** ***".