Thoughts on the New Energy Team
Posted by Robert Rapier on December 22, 2008 - 11:35am
In case you are just venturing out of your cave for the first time in a week, you are probably aware that President-elect Obama has announced his new energy team:
The team includes Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, former EPA head Carol Browner to fill the newly-created job of Energy Czar, and Lisa Jackson to head the EPA. The focus of this essay will be on Dr. Chu, but I will comment briefly on the others.
Lisa Jackson is trained as a chemical engineer (as was the outgoing Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman). It should go without saying that I like to see technical people in roles like this, where understanding science and data are both critical. Carol Browner, while not trained as a technical person, has a lot of administrative experience within the EPA. Incidentally, I once met Mrs. Browner, as she was the person who presented my research group with the 1996 Green Chemistry Challenge Award at the National Academy of Sciences for our work on biomass conversion to fuels.
While I don't know nearly as much about Browner and Jackson, Dr. Chu has a very long public record. I have been searching through his various publications, speeches, and presentations to get a good picture of the man. Here is what President-elect Obama had to say about Dr. Chu:
"His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action."
If you asked me for a few characteristics that would top my list of desirables for the spot of Energy Secretary, I would want someone who is 1). Knowledgeable about a broad range of energy technologies; 2). Passionate about the subject; 3). Not highly partisan, and can work with diverse groups.
Dr. Chu's record indicates to me that he easily fills my three criteria. Dr. Chu is currently director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Among his accomplishments there was to secure a $500 million partnership with BP to do alternative energy research. (See this story from Salon for more details.) This suggests someone who can work with industry on next generation energy technologies. I am not sure how quickly he feels we can transition away from oil, and therefore whether we need additional exploration and drilling. I couldn't find anything regarding his position on drilling. However, he has been outspoken over his opposition to coal, and his concerns about global warming. Some quotes on these topics from Dr. Chu. First, his position on coal is pretty clear:
"Coal is my worst nightmare."
He favors nuclear energy over coal (it should come as no suprise that a physicist like Dr. Chu is pro-nuclear):
"The fear of radiation shouldn't even enter into this."
"Coal is very, very bad. Nuclear has to be a necessary part of the portfolio."
Chu, who also is professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at UC Berkeley, said nuclear is the preferred choice to coal, pointing out that coal releases 50 percent more radioactivity than nuclear power plants.
His concerns over global warming have been well-publicized:
Consider this. There’s about a 50 percent chance, the climate experts tell us, that in this century we will go up in temperature by three degrees Centigrade. Now, three degrees Centigrade doesn’t seem a lot to you, that’s 11° F. Chicago changes by 30° F in half a day. But 5° C means that … it’s the difference between where we are today and where we were in the last ice age. What did that mean? Canada, the United States down to Ohio and Pennsylvania, was covered in ice year round.
So think about what 5° C will mean going the other way. A very different world. So if you’d want that for your kids and grandkids, we can continue what we’re doing. Climate change of that scale will cause enormous resource wars, over water, arable land, and massive population displacements. We’re not talking about ten thousand people. We’re not talking about ten million people, we’re talking about hundreds of millions to billions of people being flooded out, permanently.
He is no fan of corn ethanol:
We can indeed make fuel out of crops. Corn is not the right crop. The reason it’s not the right crop is because the amount of energy you put into making a fuel and growing the corn and fertilizing the corn fields and plowing the fields is within ten or 20 percent of the amount of energy you get by making it into the ethanol that you can put in your car.
Also, the amount of CO2 you create by growing corn is again within 20 percent of the amount of carbon dioxide you make by drilling and refining oil and putting into your car.
If someone wants to argue from authority about the efficiency of making ethanol from corn, they need to find a better authority than a Nobel Prize winner who runs an energy research lab.
He favors higher gas taxes:
"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Source.
From that same article:
Lee Schipper, a project scientist with the Global Metropolitan Studies program at U.C. Berkeley, hailed Obama’s nomination of Chu as Energy Secretary and praised his colleague’s support for higher gasoline taxes.
Schipper thinks Obama’s concerns about not placing additional burdens on America’s families can be addressed by agreeing to rebate all -- or close to all -- of the money raised by higher fuel taxes. “The answer is: raise the price of gasoline and give all the money back,” said Schipper.
Hmm. Where have I heard that before?
He stresses the need for greater energy efficiency (and like me, wants to be emperor of the world):
"I cannot impress upon you enough how important energy efficiency is."
"Just refrigerator efficiency -- bigger refrigerators by the way -- saves more energy than all we’re generating from renewables [today], excluding hydroelectric power."
"If I were emperor of the world, I would put the pedal to the floor on energy efficiency and conservation for the next decade."
And he recognizes that the U.S. can be a leader in new energy technologies, but are starting to fall behind in some areas.
"We have an option to be a leader in energy technologies, but we are not because our support system for that is on again off again. The future wealth of the United States will come from our ability to invent new technologies."
"Americans take for granted that the United States leads the world in science. But we've lost many of these leads, especially when it comes to energy."
"The U.S. is making it easier for other countries to catch up and pass us."
So, let's see. He has had a career focused on energy, is clearly passionate about the subject, isn't enthusiastic about making ethanol from corn, thinks we need higher gas taxes, favors nuclear power, favors alternative energy funding, favors higher energy efficiency, and is pro-science. That's exactly how I would describe myself, so from my perspective I love the choice. It's like we are twins (think Danny Devito and Arnold Schwarzenegger). I agree (almost completely) with his priorities. He has also been involved in research on cellulosic ethanol, and will likely send more research dollars flowing in that direction.
I think the issue that will generate some controversy is his very strong position on global warming. Not since Al Gore was Vice-President will there be such a staunch proponent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the highest levels of government. Global warming activists will love him. Skeptics probably won't be quite so enthusiastic.
------------------
Here are the quick bios of the rest of the energy/environment team, courtesy of Wired:
Lisa Jackson, EPA head
Quick bio: Trained as a chemical engineer at Princeton, she has spent her entire career with government environmental agencies. She worked her way up through the EPA from 1987-2002, then moved to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, eventually becoming its head in 2006. She was appointed as New Jersey Governor John Corzine's chief-of-staff less than a month ago.
Carol Browner, energy czar
Quick bio: The longest-serving EPA administrator in the history of the agency, Browner is the non-scientist on the team. She came up through politics, working as Al Gore's legislative director in the late 1980s, before heading the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. She was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 to helm the EPA and left in 2001. Since then, she's been a consultant with The Albright Group.
Her position: The new "energy czar" will coordinate (and politically shepherd) the President-elect's various proposals around energy and the environment.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Bottom rung on top. Since skepticism is inversely proportional to expertise on this subject it is high time that they didn't matter.
What does that mean? Too cryptic for me.
I am somewhat hopeful that a knowledge-based administration will do a better job that a faith-based one. But I guess I am not holding my breath. Politics appears to be more of the First Estate than even the Second. As for the Third Estate, where true innovation arises, well, the peasants only want bread, but they are being offered virtual cake instead.
Perhaps he is saying that Obama is the most IQ-challenged and that therefore none of it matters. Bottom rung is on top. Inverse..etc..skepticalism...yada.yada....his meaning is hidden or have I got it wrong.
Yet maybe its better to have more able folken beneath you than above?
Good CEOs once upon a time , long long ago , knew they didn't know much so they made sure they hired very smart folks...of course that is no longer the case ..for now no matter who they hire...they all get shitcanned whilst the big guy gets more millions and a trophy wife to boot.
AirWorker
A minus 4..
Well I was just translating what the above poster was trying to say.
Now I once thought Obama a bad choice but of late I have looked more at the situation and think perhaps if anyone might stand a chance it would be a rank outsider who has some things against him that might be to his benefit.
So I am very much in favor of his trying to fix this enormous problem.
Perhaps he is a Man for The Times at that.
I am finding that of late my perceptions of race are not as strong as they used to be. In fact I have changed on the issue quite a bit.
I never was a racist but tried to judge each person individually and decried the idea of being told that one MUST do this for Those..etcetera....I once saved the life of my black tennis partner in Raleigh, NC when he collapsed with a heart attack in my car. So I was never that bad.
Let each man stand or fall on his own..so to speak and take the judgement he might deserve for his actions.
I also find that there seems to be improving race relations as a result of Obama arriving on the scene and stirring the pot.
Airdale-peace to all, Mele Kalikimaka to all, enjoy the holidays like it might never be like this again in the upcoming shitstorm...
Robert,
Obama's team looks very promising, especially Dr. Holdren.
But, you seem to be hung up on using a gas tax to promote energy conservation and to encourage people to switch to alternatives. In your previous thread, you didn't consider the other impact of using a gas tax, which was inflation. What's the point of refunding the funds from the gas tax (thereby reducing it's effectiveness) when the resulting inflation would act as a "tax" on the average person? Wouldn't the benefit of the rebate be more than offset by the increase in prices which all would pay?
Once we are past the Peak, I submit that rationing will be the only hope...
E. Swanson
If the idea is to simply hassle the motoring public - by taxing gasoline then giving the money back later - a rule requiring (very long) forms be filled out before a fill- up would be a better approach. If the idea is to promote conservation and stimulate alternatives then the thing to do is tax and tax and tax some more ... and keep the money. Use it to pay off the (mind- bogglingly large) government deficit and square our accounts with our (increasingly nervous) creditors. $10 gas will mean few will drive - all will complain ... including me because ten bucks is still TOO DAMNED CHEAP!
As for the 'picks' (I would have chosen younger, more athletic players who can out jump the defensive backs and block downfield) ... Browner is another Clinton re- tread, Chu is clearly smart and might be the mainspring of a sensible energy strategy. Then again, he might just be an attractive scientist- like substance ... another corporate shill. Time will tell. As for Lisa Jackson, she worked for the State government of New Jersey and was never arrested, indicted, investigated by a grand jury for corruption - nor did her name ever come up in wiretapped conversations. This is a surprise for a New Jersey government official. Nor ... is she gay (nothing wrong with that), married to two persons simultaneously, have a 'love nest' or a 'boy- toy', beat her children or dogs (or cats), and is not a drug addict.
Clearly a qualified person.
I'm skeptical about a tax and rebate scheme. What tax rate would actually produce a noticeable decline in demand? I doubt that anyone can give a rational answer to that question.
We need actual alternative(s) to fossil fuels, and then subsidize the selling price of those alternative(s) in the market. Pay for the subsidy out of fossil fuel tax revenues. Adjust tax rate as the alternative(s) achieve some market penetration. To receive the subsidy, a supplier must open its books for inspection by the taxing authority.
Eventually, there will be no fossil fuel in the market. The revenue from tax on fossil fuel will trend to zero. The resulting subsidy for alternative fuel will also trend to zero. And, we will have made a useful orderly transition.
In the process of this transition, the total volume of liquid fuel may well decline because the economy cannot support the profligate use that has occurred up to now. This tax does not preclude such an adjustment to reality.
What tax rate would actually produce a noticeable decline in demand?
$4/gal gasoline saw a dramatic turnaround in fuel demand.
"$4/gal gasoline saw a dramatic turnaround in fuel demand."
But that was not a tax. That was market forces. Many thought the market force was 'speculators' and that the price might well go much higher before it went lower.
When a tax is imposed, there needs to be a rational for the size of the tax, not just punish users.
Of course, taxes are not popular. A tax that did nothing but raise the price of gas to $4/gal from current market price of ~$1.50/gal would not really do 'nothing' else. There would be a general revolt of the populace. With a plausible plan to transition to something else - maybe, just maybe a tax would be accepted. After all, we have been willing to pay a gas tax that is dedicated to road building and repair. I maintain that it was the link to a specific use that has made that tax somewhat OK.
Would there? PR (unfortunately) is everything, and if the tax was (a) sold as a measure against the Islamic Republics and Venezuela and (b) rebated to the public as a tax credit, voters would probably go for it; I know I would. Hummers and Excursions and Durangos are not all that popular right now, and anything that helps Detroit sell hybrids and PHEVs instead of SUVs can be sold as a bridge to the future.
We need actual alternative(s) to fossil fuels, and then subsidize the selling price of those alternative(s) in the market. Pay for the subsidy out of fossil fuel tax revenues.
That scheme won't work, because you will have congress trying to pick technology winners. By increasing fossil fuel taxes, you automatically improve the prospects for alternatives with low fossil fuel inputs. Those that are viable solutions will win out.
I believe if we had a scheme like this in place, we would have never seen corn ethanol at these levels. More likely would have been a push toward electric transport.
Also it won't work because the people who are paid out of fossil fuel tax revenues to produce "actual alternative(s)" will understand that their employment is on a fail-or-be-fired basis.
--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)
Robert;
Congress didn't choose the technology of our current nuclear power plants, and industry didn't do the choosing either. It was the predecessor to DOE or NRC, i.e. some bureaucrats and some scientists at national labs. Not a perfect system, but not nearly as bad as a pure Congressional sausage making.
Unsaid in my original post was that there needs to be some technical criteria for what qualifies as a true alternative to fossil fuel. Clearly, ethanol from corn needs to be severely handicapped. Had the selection been taken out of the hands of Congress this might have happened.
Also note that I expect the whole of the tax revenue is to be spent making the alternatives price competitive with taxed fossil fuel. And the money for the subsidy will come only from the fossil fuel tax and not from the general fund of the government. This places a sever limit on the tax rate and the subsidy rate. The actual volume of alternative fuel will be so small to start that it could be given a 90% subsidy without effecting the price of gas at the pump much at all.
Much later, when alternative fuel is a major fraction of the market, scarcity of fossil fuel will be causing the price of fossil fuel to rise even before the tax is applied. Eventually, fossil fuel will cost more than unsubsidized alternative fuel. The subsidy and the tax will be adjusted to 0% and fossil fuel will be a thing of the past, and there won't be a subsidy for motor fuel.
In this proposal, there is no choosing of technologies except on the basis of their fossil fuel content. Any technology that is truly a fuel and is truly not fossil, should earn the subsidy. If there are two alternative technologies, the subsidy is given to both. The lower cost
alternative will win in the market because it can be sold for less.
This is a Technocrat idea, but without the goofiness of trying to substitute some crazy energy/power unit for money. We don't know today how much the alternative to fossil fuel will cost in that future time.
I don't envision subsidizing electric vehicles, just fuels. I expect the price of fuels to rise enough that electric vehicles will become competitive merely because of the higher price of alternative fuels.
IMHO, Chu is a likely person to lead the bureaucrat-scientist team that does the analysis of candidate fuel technologies. Certainly we don't want an economist for leader.
Actually, the DOE and NRC didn't choose it, it was the old AEC. They purposely killed thorium and liquid fuel nuclear reactors, fired Dr. Alvin Wienberg, and set the NRC on it's course we see now. They've done better with combining licenses and other regulations and standardization of plant designs.
I think the main point is that for the next 4 to 8 years, ALL forms of energy technology ARE going to be funded, yes, that means NUCLEAR and "CLEAN" COAL and wind, HVDC etc etc. Get used to it.
David
"It was the predecessor to DOE or NRC ..." is what I said.
Robert you might want to check up on the source for:
It's not a misquote. I watched the video, that's what he said.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/06/steven-chu-beautiful-planet/
The three degrees part is clearly a slip of the tongue.
If you watch the video, the slide says five degrees everywhere, that's starting around 1:10 into the video.
.
For those that haven't, it's really worth watching that video. I really like this guy. Don't know if he'll be effective, but he seems to really get energy efficiency.
The rebate doesn't have to come back in kind. It might be higher gas taxes and free transit, for example, so many people could simply dump their cars entirely. That doesn't seem fair, does it? But we have to start thinking how to move away from the current locked in paradigm. Thing is, the two can't be locked fiscally, though they can be tied as part of a social compact. Or it could be some form of negative income tax.
Rationing is probably a better way to go. It's more directly and explicitly about scale and distribution and better done while we can work it out, rather than after the fact imposed by the corporate/military mind.
More likely, increased fuel taxes will go to the roads - rather than to removing the need for roads.
cfm in Gray, ME
Don't forget the excellent Molina appointment: Obama names Mexico chemistry Nobel laureate Molina to oversee climate change.
Even Noble Prize winners are human. Dr. Chu's funding is from British Petroleum which raises a red flag to my mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu
He commits the error RR is so famous for of comparing unlike and unlike. Different forms of energy with different prices, utility, characteristics like renewability, and different availability depending on location can not be validly compared based on energy content. Energy is an abstract concept like fruit, grain, or metal.
Even though the units of measure in and out are the same, each energy form is different and can not be validly compared. If they are anyway, the result is silly nonsense. It appears that Dr. Chu has fallen into this trap with RR.
Besides, he doesn't know that corn fields are rarely plowed any more. So much for petroleum industry research into ethanol. Why is it that the ethanol industry would be laughed out of science if they tried to do a study of petroleum production? But when petroleum funded research is done on ethanol it is taken at face value.
The EROEI numbers for ethanol are false because the logic behind them is false and I can not verify any of it on my farm nor in the production of the many ethanol plants around here.
I have stopped responding to your posts for the most part, because you just say the same thing over and over. But this one is so full of irony, I think I will make a few comments.
Even Noble Prize winners are human. Dr. Chu's funding is from British Petroleum which raises a red flag to my mind.
LOL! Where to start? Let's see, the guy who grows corn for a living and stands to benefit from this whole scam is criticizing Dr. Chu for getting funding from BP to fund – wait for it – renewable energy. You did know that BP, as well as several other oil companies, produce renewable energy? In fact, there was nothing stopping them from going whole hog into corn ethanol. They just didn't see it as a good business opportunity. So instead you had a bunch of guys with little or no experience in energy production who took up the challenge. What happened? Waves of bankruptcies, and calls for a bailout. Looks like the oil companies made the right call on that one.
He commits the error RR is so famous for of comparing unlike and unlike.
Yes, I am sure that's it. The Nobel laureate who runs a renewable energy lab is wrong, and the guy who grows corn for a living is correct. This has been explained to you at least a dozen times. I am not in the mood to do it again.
Why is it that the ethanol industry would be laughed out of science if they tried to do a study of petroleum production?
Well, because the ethanol industry doesn't produce petroleum. Dr. Chu's lab does produce alternative energy, and almost all oil companies have entire departments devoted to alternative energy. So I think it's pretty safe to say that the oil industry knows more about producing ethanol than the ethanol industry knows about producing oil. But again, your comparison is false, because Dr. Chu is no 'the petroleum industry.'
The EROEI numbers for ethanol are false because the logic behind them is false and I can not verify any of it on my farm nor in the production of the many ethanol plants around here.
I can tell you what would verify it for you in a hurry. Stop using fossil fuel inputs, and just run your farm on the ethanol that is produced from your corn. You would find out in a big hurry just how dependent you are on fossil fuels to keep this charade afloat.
It occurs to me that we'll be making ethanol w/o fossil fuel inputs long before we'll be making gasoline w/o fossil fuel inputs.
Dr Chu's lab was paid $500,000,000.00 by BP to study Cellulosic Ethanol. He wouldn't know a corn-picker from a nose-picker, I'd bet.
We don't need Appeals to Authority; We know how to add up the inputs, and subtract them from the outputs. Then, there's the one Really Big Difference. We can add corn fields at will.
Then, there's the one Really Big Difference. We can add corn fields at will.
Yes, because as we all know, arable land, fertilizer, fossil fuel to run tractors and ethanol plants etc., are all infinite.
Well, the team at Stanford counted up over One Billion Abandoned Acres, worldwide. This, of course, doesn't include all the underutilized land (like the 500 Million, or so, that We use for "light" grazing.
As for tractors: they run just fine on biodiesel, and ethanol (in fact, the "Tractor Pullers" use alcohol.
Fertilizer IS, probably, our Next Big Challenge. It will be with, or without, ethanol. The difference will only be a few years. There are steps we will have to take: but they will not be easy.
Anyway, it doesn't much matter. Only about 10% of our plants remain to be completed, and that will pretty much take us as far as we're going to go with Corn.
Ok, I'll bite.
It doesn't matter if there are one billion abandoned acres worldwide because the best land will be used for whatever is most profitable. And the best land is currently growing food.
Why would a working farmer knowingly reduce his profit by attempting to use inferior abandoned land when his current land is being used precisely because it is, for some reason, better than the abandoned acres? He won't. So he'll take food crops out and put fuel crops in if he can maximize his profits.
Thus we will always have food-fuel pressures no matter what the crop.
Putting fuel in competition with food is a terrible idea.
And don't forget the study that showed that bio-fuels actually increase greenhouse gasses when you factor in the destruction of carbon removing forests every time you add your cornfields at will.
TS
Toucan, the theory that a farmer planting more corn in the USA might lead to trees being cut down (for soybeans) in Brazil doesn't make any sense. We pay farmers Not to Farm 34 Million Acres every year. Brazil has somewhere between 150 Million, and 350 Million Acres of fertile land lying fallow as we speak.
Absolutely NO One would cut down trees to get to relatively infertile land when Millions of acres of Fertile land is lying fallow in the adjacent county. Forests are Logged for the Lumber. It's extremely valuable.
Hey kdolliso,
I'm merely the messenger on this one. If you feel you have a valid counter argument, I'd love for you to write to the one of the scientists and share the results of your dialogue here at TOD. Here's an article to let you know where I'm drawing my previous comments from.
TS
Biofuels deemed a greenhouse gas threat
Dr. Chu's lab does produce alternative energy,
Really. How much ethanol do you suppose the good Doctor's lab produced last year.
The biggest problem I see with EROEI is it's always discussed in btus, and not in "work done."
For instance, gasoline has more "btus" than ethanol. However, gasoline doesn't become an effective liquid fuel for ICEs until it's mixed with a liquid containing higher Octane. You just can't compress it enough without experiencing "Knock."
If EROEI was expressed in Capability to Perform Work" I would have no objection to the phrase. Of course, to do this you would have to consider btu content, Octane, capability of working with current infrastructure, modifications required to current engines, etc.
OMFG, lol, REALLY? I can never take you seriously ever again.... not that I ever did
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_work
read over this a bit, and maybe you'll realize why you sound so credible...
Gee, I wish energy and work were the same thing, ohh wait, they are! :D
That's all "True," but it's not Relevant. Look, all I'm saying is: it doesn't matter how many btus you have if you can't use them for the task at hand. A lump of coal has a lot of btus, but you can't burn it in your Volvo. And, you can't burn Oil, or straight gasoline, either.
When dealing with the fleet of ICE Spark Engines, Octane has to be considered. It's the "Other Half" of the equation. The fact is, Ethanol will produce More Horsepower in a spark engine than will gasoline. You can compress it more.
To do your EROEI equations on btus, alone, is misleading. It doesn't give a correct result.
You apparently don't realize that the fact that you live in an alternative universe is making it difficult for you to communicate anything that makes sense to us earthlings who are grounded in earth type logic. Sure, your arguments might make sense, but not in the universe that most of us live in. I will admit that I cannot make heads or tails of your argument. Admittedly, if one takes the position that two different sources of energy cannot be compared, one can not lose any arguments purporting to show that one energy source is more efficient than another one.
Okay, how about this?
I can get More Horsepower with a gallon of ethanol than you can get with a gallon of straight gasoline.
How about this:
Gallons are measures of quantity. Power is a measure of rate. Your claim is meaningless down to the physics.
The lower heating value (LHV) of ethanol is about 78,000 BTU/gallon (if memory serves). Gasoline is around 115,000 BTU/gallon, or roughly 50% greater. Unless your ethanol-tuned engine can get ~50% greater thermal efficiency than one which burns gasoline, you will not get the same amount of work out of the ethanol as the gasoline. Sure, you can run the ethanol engine at higher power; you won't get as many horsepower-hours.
Yes, Chu sounds like a Energy Dream Team player, as do Browner, Jackson, and Holdren.
A high gas tax on liquid fuels (rebated equally) will reward those who conserve, and incentivize those who don't to seek a less consumptive means for transportation, heating, etc.
Robert - a very useful summary:
I think the most important issue here is that the policies make sense from both energy decline and a GW concerned angle and are not driven solely by the latter. Hence, a focus on energy efficiency may take the USA away from corn ethanol, flirting with Hydrogen and CCS. Replacing coal with nuclear will not likely thrill the environmental lobby.
Like you I am pretty much assured by Chu's pedigree. Delivery will be another issue - assuming that for example their is a powerful coal lobby that will resist moves to reduce the size of their industry.
One piece missing from this jig saw is how to deliver energy efficiencies as reductions in energy use.
Lawrence Berkeley national Laboratory (which Chu has been running) is probably the most effective lab in the US in doing energy efficiency work and getting it implemented. [If someone thinks another lab is, I'd certainly be interested in learning more of them.]
Among other things, California Energy Commissioner Art Rosenfeld, "Doctor Efficiency", has long been based there. Chu is quoted when Rosenberg got the Fermi award.
Take a look at a recent Rosenfeld presentation as an example. LBNL is one of the reasons why CA does better than most states.
Anyway, if there's one thing I *don't* worry about, it's Chu understanding the importance of efficiency.
John, thanks for the links.
In my reference to extracting energy savings from energy efficiency I was thinking about Jevons' paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Put simply, energy efficiency leads to more energy use - the opposite of the desired outcome. I've heard an Italian colleague say that efficiency is the shortest route to Hell.
My own view is that efficiency of energy production and consumption can be our savior in the short to medium term (this century) and I'm quite sure that Dr Chu can deliver programs on both. The challenge in the medium to long term is to ensure that energy efficiencies yield meaningful energy savings on an equitable basis and to achieve this I believe that some energy quota system is required. Otherwise populations will continue to grow and we reach a higher point fom which to fall.
That doesn't seem to happen with superinsulated or passive-solar houses. A more-efficient refrigerator isn't going to get people to buy several. On the contrary, at a certain point of efficiency it's relatively cheap to run everything on renewable energy.
A more efficient refrigerator may tempt someone to buy a larger refrigerator in similar way to someone may buy a larger and heavier car.
And maintaining population in comfort using small amounts of renewable energy - which I agree is a very good thing - will lead to continued population growth that will ultimately meet a resource limiting variable - water, land, food etc.
So at some point, the argument goes, there is a need to control individuals' use of resources and the numbers of individuals using them.
I frequently see Jevons' Paradox cited to claim energy efficiency doesn't help, but I think the examples in this thread, and actually, the two diagrams in the Wikipedia page show that the idea is sometimes over-applied, and I think that for another reason as well.
First, the Wikipedia page distinguishes between elastic demand (where Jevons' might apply) and inelastic demand (where it doesn't). However, I think the real world is more complex than the simple curves. For example, if energy is an important cost for something, and you get 2X as efficient:
a) At first, you may get tempted to buy a bigger fridge.
b) But at some point, you run into some kind of limit. For example, we could have bought a bigger fridge, but it wouldn't have fit into the existing cavbinetry.
c) Likewise, once a water heater is "big enough", if natural gas prices dropped by 2, would you tear out it and put in a bigger one?
d) Likewise, if gas prices drop, people may drive more, but at some point, gas prices could approach zero and it wouldn't encourage more driving. In particular, if using energy also costs *time*, time is a resource as well. Gasoline in Mumbai could be free, but that wouldn't help traffic much.
e) Likewise, if electricity were ~free, we might get careless, but would we leave the lights on all the time? [no, they burn out] Would we run the dryer more often [no] Would we build a new house that used twice as much electricity? [no]
Second, we're up against a different issue. TOD readers may know Bob & Leslie Ayres (smart folks, were just here for dinner a month ago). See the last page of Bob's 2005 ASPO paper, in which he describes trajectories of the US economy according to different efficiencies, in the face of Peak Oil. Recall that Ayres has long maintained that a big component of economic growth is really:
work = energy * efficiency
(which makes more sense than "Total Factor Productivity" :-))
So, to accomplish the *same* work in a period when energy supplies lessen and costs rise, one has to get better on efficiency.
I would claim that in many cases, people would be happy to maintain their existing lives or something close, and that Jevons' Law shouldn't be over-applied in the case when long-term energy prices trend upwards.
I think the real issue is getting the first-cost versus continuing cost equation right, and energy prices can be unpredictable. Around here, there are lots of plans to help homeowners avoid the "payback period is longer than I expect to be here" problem. Establishing in people's minds the idea that energy will be more expensive certainly helps people think about spending more on efficiency upfront.
The gas tax/rebate thing makes no sense to me. To the consumer it is a net breakeven, but all you are doing is adding a level of bureaucracy to handle the rebates. If you want to do the tax/rebate thing for fuel efficient vehicles, it might make more sense.
What are the thoughts about the Secretary of Transportation nominee - Ray LaHood. He doesn't bring any of the star quality to the job that these others have, and yet some of the things that we need to focus on are going to come out of his department. It is hard to tell what his personal views are as he hasn't done all that much. On the surface he seems OK, I guess, but nothing stands out..
The gas tax/rebate thing makes no sense to me.
I think it makes perfect sense. A scheme like that could be sold to the public. Imagine that gasoline goes to $4 a gallon, but that your income taxes are going to be reduced. Are you really not going to make any changes in your driving? I think most people will, and then pocket the income tax rebate (or more likely, spend it on something else).
I disagree. Suppose the average worker makes $25k/year and the rebate is $1,000 a year, or 4% of their income. If prices increase 5%, they've lost purchasing power. And, the tax must be adjusted upward to keep the relative price of fuel the same. And, why limit the tax just to gasoline? Why not tax all petroleum products? Isn't the problem an impending shortage of petroleum compared to implied demand as production declines and population increases while the demand per capita increases as well?
E. Swanson
The next step is ...?
The 'Bete Noir' here in the hinterlands is the Carbon Tax. Obama has been tarred with the accusation of carbon tax ... along with the swift removal of all firearms. I don't know about firearms, but the carbon tax is both an excellent idea and probably inevitable although not from O'Bama.
One thing I want to be clear about is the entire tax issue needs to be overhauled from the bottom up. The US tax system is as broken as the financial system. Adding a tax here and taking one away somewhere else becomes a meaningless exercise. The original idea of the flexible, 'voluntary' US tax code was to encourage socially useful activities such as obtaining mortgage financing for home ownership and to support entrepeneurs and public philanthropy. At the same time, the tax system exists to support 'Debtism' and its evil twin, 'Spendism'. While the democrats are usually chastised for out- of- control spending, the republicans are more guilty of running up the national credit card:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Meaning O'Bama will set priorities for good or ill; that he will likely support (and clearly does support) increased spending and the first and absolute priority of his staff will also be to increase spending. I'll not go into the natural outcome of more and more spending, but it's safe to assume that spending will continue until it is rendered impossible by circumstances. Since such circumstances will probably disable all forms of business as usual including government fiscal operations, the possibilities for Dr. Chu or others to establish a rational energy policy outside the imperative to spend and spend more and more borrowed money are slim and becoming slimmer by the minute.
Assuming that the incomings can get some sort of grip on the economy and that the partial policy directive(s) of the energy team are to develop and help bring to market new energy products and services the question is whether taxes or taxes- plus- markets or some other means would be the most effective way to impliment the policy. One problem with any tax approach is the citizenry has been well trained by a succession of 'Free Market' ideologues into reflexively opposing any sort of tax- as- a- matter of 'principle'. Add to this the nostrum that raising taxes during an economic slowdown is both impossible and counterproductive because it throttles growth (just as raising taxes during good times also throttles growth) it is clear that any administration is somewhat painted into a 'No Tax' corner.
A gasoline tax would be the simplest administrative remedy to over- consumption, provided it is presented in the context of a 'national sacrifice'; a post- 9/11 call to patriotic duty. This approach would probably be acceptible to the tax- hating but otherwise patriotic citizenry. After all, the country did indeed survive intact $4 a gallon gasoline and the demand cutback was measurable as a result of these prices. In fact, the Euros endure gas and diesel prices that twice as high as last summer's $4 high without any collapse toward primitivism. The 'technical' objections to a gas tax - that miles driven and consumption can only increase (like real estate prices) as by a writ from God cast in stone upon the holy mountain ... and that conservation will lead Americans to repeating a medievil lifestyle (which is really where over- consumption will take us ...) simply have no ground. If it is made clear that the purpose is to cut consumption (to support the troops or whatever) and not simply another revenue stream for the dead hand of governance a substantial gas tax with a floor price would he acceptible by the public.
This being with some sort of economic activity so that there are drivers to tax in the first place.
From the perspective of ends- and- means taxation may not be the best approach, anyway. The 'heart' question is what is the policy goal? Is it to gain revenue or to pursuade motorists to drive less or not at all? Personally, the best outcome would be to eliminate a large fraction of driving since it is wasteful of time and fuel as well the compounding economy- wide of following good investment after bad. In other words, if fewer Americans owned cars, they would have more money available for other purchases which presumably would have fewer ill effects on the economy and ecologies than do the cars. One approach would simply ask Americans to reduce energy consumption by 75% over three years- and not give a tinker's damn how its done! The alternative to such (or a reasonable but significant) reduction would be massive taxes, rationing, governors on engines, road closures, numerous fees, even- odd day highway use ... as well as other draconian measures that would serve convince the public that even a high- school dropout can come up with unpopular policy and make it stick ... as an alterative to voluntary action.
Never underestimate the ability of Americans to do the right thing when a gun is pointed at their heads!
There are other alternatives that avoid the blunt instrument of taxation such as performance 'rebates' that would reward conservation and encourage abandoning the auto. Simply subsidizing new towns with 'Really Narrow Streets' would put a longer- term dent on the auto culture (although the inner dictator in me would enact sweeping changes in this direction in less than six months!):
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2008/122108.html
To summarize:
- O'Bama's team's first priority will be to spend and spend borrowed money, for whatever reason.
- All other policies including science for its own sake will take second place to spending.
- The goal of any energy policy should be to conserve/develop alternatives rather than to simply raise revenues.
- Any clever means to end automania should be considered and once considered, put into action.
- Americans will do the right thing if they have no other choice.
The one thing almost always left out of a discussion of a gas tax is it's national efficiency. For a product whose main cost is an imported commodity which is highly price inelestic, the foreign exporters in effect provide a very substantial subsidy. That this should be true should be obvious, marginal cost to the consumer increases => lower demand, leads to lower cost of the commodity inputs. But we get lost in the usual demagogery :Joe the cab driver:"but the problem is I'm paying too much for gas". The problem from a systemic viewpoint (looking at the economy as a whole, not just a couple of isolated individuals), is that the high cost of imported oil wrecks havoc on the curreent account balance. Cutting demand helps in two ways, reducing the volume of imports, and reducing the price for those imports. As a newly poor country, we cannot afford to overlook such economic policy synergies.
It doesn't make sense to you because you have an ideological blind spot about any kind of taxes.
Get over it.
And it won't take a whole new level of bureaucracy to implement. They send out rebate checks and tax returns all the time.
The part that IS worrisome is the nuclear part. We are running low on resources and cash. We have to spend what little we have were it will yield the highest payback, and that is on conservation, first, second, third.....to about twentieth. Once we've got all we can out of conservation (in its various forms) then we can see what's left for the least polluting, highest yield alternative sources for energy--that would be wind and certain kinds of solar. Once we spend all we can on those, I doubt there will be much left for high-cast nukes.
Dangerous, expensive, impractical.
(But I know others here disagree, so have at me boys and girls.)
Limit the tax rebate to those who need it to get to their minimum wage jobs. The rest of us should pay for our years of poor vehicle choices. I personally have a 400 HP monster that I can eco mile up to 31 MPG highway - I wish it were a l liter Renault 10 (no power, but I could take anything downhill on a mountain, plus the engine rebuilds could be done on the kitchen table). I make up for my sin in owning the monster by bicycling where ever I can.
Please do not rule out nuclear. Remember the current USA reactors where really built to provide material for mushroom shaped clouds. The Liquid Floride/Thorium type is safe, has already been built (project axed in early 70s). Plus, it can be cookie cutter produced and, with a bit of finness, replace the boilers at existing coal burners, thereby keeping the rest of the existing plant infrastructure (turbine, generator, switch gear, cooling towers, etc. all of which are expensive, long lead time items) intact. And yes, we have plenty of thorium and as for floride, it is in your toothpaste so that the phosphate mines do not have to expensively dispose of it.
So how are you going to tell Iran that nuclear is just great for us, but you can never ever use it?
We live in a world that is locked in an apparently permanent war on terror. How many new targets do you want to create for terrorists to hit?
Nukes non-starters on just about any front you can imagine--economic, ecological, security...
Oh, but we are supposed to believe that the new generation of nukes will be perfectly safe, absolutely cheap, and have no other unanticipated problems. Or were those the promises of the previous generation of nukes?
I do like your idea of giving the rebate to the neediest, though. But the larger problem with that, however ethically and economically right it may be, is that the program isn't going to be popular unless most people think they are getting something out of it.
If we actually read what the ruling mullahs say, instead of what AIPAC, and the neocons feed our feeble brains, we would realize Iran isn't much of a Nuclear breakout threat. These people have strong religious convictions about the evil nature of weapons of mass destruction. It should be noted, that even during the Iran-Iraq war when Saddam was killing thousands of their countrymen with chemical weapons, they refused to respond in kind. But these sorts of facts are so utterly contrary to the propaganda which passes as wisdom in this country, that I suppose we will never figure that out!
So you see my answer to your question, is we welcome Iranian power Nukes -especially if we can steer them into using Thorium as a fuel. (Thorium has zero profiferation isues associated with it.) Life, and diplomacy would be so much easier if we would open our minds to seeing the world as it is, not as deluded special interests want us to see it.
Only the ones at Hanford, and of these, only one ever produced power. "The current USA reactors" are descendants of the one at Shippingport, which in turn had its design derived from submarine propulsion power reactors. None of them ever produced material for a mushroom shaped cloud.
--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)
A means test for who gets the rebate will require a much larger bureaucracy than a simple per capita rebate. Bad idea.
Really? You have no idea what my feelings about taxes are, and yet you are trying to put words into my mouth.
dohboi:
Pretty darn good retort. Keep up the good work.
I disagree about Nukes -or at least advanced concept (read nonwasteful fuel cycles) Nukes. But in the context of the current crisis, any such investment functions as a stimulus. I'd rather see a maginal increase in nuke research than a marginal increase in consumption of consumer goods -and the former would have a better stimulus effect, because less of the Nuke research dollar will be spent on imported goods. But you are absolutely correct that conservation, sometimes called negawatts, are by far the most cost effective way to tackle energy.
Maybe these senior people need to be less brainy but more determined. I fear that if they are undercut by political realities one or two might resign rather than fight on. They also need to be less preachy than Gore because that approach doesn't seem to work. I'd almost be inclined to put ex military people in some of these top jobs with Nobel laureates as advisors not administrators.
As I posted in Drumbeat the government elected in Australia a year ago has done a major backflip on climate mitigation, breaking a key election promise. In the parliamentary system a lawmaker is appointed minister for each portfolio. However the recent big announcement in which carbon caps were effectively scuttled was delivered by PM Kevin Rudd, not the relevant minister Penny Wong. If I can read facial expressions that was an embarrassing experience getting sidelined by the boss. However Penny Wong was a lawyer not a scientist and perhaps can only feel guilt for five minutes. A scientist would resign and that is what I think could happen if Obama decides to go against the advice of a Secretary.
Thanks for the great summary.
I'm excited to see Dr. Chu's plans for nuclear research. It seems like quite a list of potential nuclear energy technologies has built up, I'd love to see them get a rigourous screening.
The composition of Obama's 'Energy Team' is ultimately of little relevance and hardly worthy of wasting an entire post agonizing over it.
All these machinations will, in short order, be subsumed into an overall 'Obama agenda', much like FDR's New Deal, or JFK's New Frontier. The policy and facts will be force-fitted into the political expedients, and there's a great big check valve preventing things from flowing in the other direction.
As an aside, being a Nobel Laureate hardly wins any points in my book. Some really big jerks have won the Nobel prize, and having The Prize gives you a license to pontificate about things you know literally nothing about. It is a very seductive situation when everybody hangs on your every word just because some people in Sweden have decided it's your turn to get the Big One this year. The Nobel Prize has probably ruined more scientists than booze or drugs.
My best guess is that the Obama Administration, for all its good intentions, is very soon going to find itself up to its neck in alligators of types they haven't even imagined, such that ideas regarding energy independence and the like will soon fall by the wayside in an effort just to politically survive.
By the way, I must say that I really detest the word 'policy'. Why? Because it has a built-in presumption that the people creating said 'policy' have both the power and the legitimacy to actually cause things to happen to other people. People in power create 'policy' for their subjects or for weaker political entities. For example, the US can have whatever policy it wants against Muslim extremists, but that doesn't mean that things will turn out in its favor. Policy creation, as it is practiced by the US government, is really an exercise in vanity and hubris.
I think that, at best, an Obama administration is going to be Clinton II Lite; at worst a well-meaning disaster. I sincerely wish him well, as he seems like a very decent person, but things appear to be pointing in a very uncertain direction, and I wouldn't even venture a guess as to what things are going to be like two years from now.
I wish I could give joule more stars? From the posts I've read up top there seems to be an overabundance of rose-colored glasses around here.
Are you even reading the same site as the rest of us? I've seen less pessimism at Dr. Kevourkian Birthday Bash.
You must be joking...most threads on this site read like Obama talking heads on the MSM. I've seen more skepticism from Jiminy Cricket.
The composition of Obama's 'Energy Team' is ultimately of little relevance and hardly worthy of wasting an entire post agonizing over it.
Well, this is a site on energy issues. The composition of the energy team is certainly relevant for discussion, and I am not aware that anyone spent any time agonizing over it.
I think that, at best, an Obama administration is going to be Clinton II Lite; at worst a well-meaning disaster.
Does this mean he only gets to 2nd base with his intern? Seriously, so far Obama has shown himself to be far more organized than Clinton. While I question some of his choices for his cabinet, Clinton was still scrambling to fill cabinet posts in the days leading up to the inauguration.
The problem for Obama is going to be that he is inheriting an incredible mess, and expectations are way too high. I don't see how he can do anything but fall short of expectations, but I like what I see from him so far. Of course after the last eight years, I have forgotten what good looks like.
Chu isn't a good choice in my opinion, nor is nuclear power. Note the Greenpeace response to the question at:
http://marklynas.org/2008/11/14/nuclear-power-greenpeace-responds
Also somewhere on this site is an article by Herman Daly about the importance of a static economy and how we cannot afford to continue to pursue a growth economy. I think that is very important but is being ignored, apparently.
Greenpeace people's position on the relative safety and effectiveness of nuclear power, compared to fossil fuel power and wind power, varies significantly depending on whether or not their personal skins are involved.
--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)
I wouldn't know about that, but I think Dr. John Goffman, hired long ago by the AEC to study the effects of the nuclear fuel cycle on humans, was spot on in his conclusions. It should be shut down. The only reason central authority wants to push it down our throats is to keep after the growth economy, another bad idea.
I believe our top three sources of energy in the U.S. are oil, coal, and natural gas, with nuclear power a distant fourth. It looks to me like the Obama team is going to pursue policies not conducive to the expansion of #1-3, and since it takes so long to build a nuclear power plant, it will be a long time (not during the Obama presidency) before we get any expansion of #4. Any energy increase in an Obama presidency will have to come from the currently small renewable energy sources.
Maybe for the long term this would be a good thing, as it will ease us off of fossil fuels. However, in the short and medium term, it looks like less total energy for the U.S. That might be problematic for us economically, and it might also be problematic for the Democratic party in 2012.
As James Hansen remarked recently, both Molten Salt Reactors and Integral Fast Reactors have been built before and proven to work. The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment reactor was built in just 4 years, and it was only the second of its type. New projects should take even less time.
With the experience we have gained, a high-priority program should be able to build a commercial-scale MSR or IFR in approximately 2 years from the go-ahead. That could be as soon as mid-2011. The initial fuel loads could be derived from spent PWR fuel, literally getting rid of a storage problem. If we build one MSR and one IFR per year for the next several years with completions starting in 2011, we'd have 4 new reactors by mid-2012, two burning uranium (IFR) and two burning thorium (MSR). Before the next presidential election, we'd have the solution for our nuclear waste program in hand and more carbon-free electricity going on line year by year. MSRs could be mixed with compressed air energy storage (CAES) to help use wind power more effectively as well. If the Democratic party can lose its nuclear-phobia, it should be well-situated for the 2012 elections.
Coming from a project engineering background, it seems highly unlikely that any USA reactor project (conventional or MSR) could be sited, permitted and engineered within the timeframes you suggest. Even with zero public objection, billion-dollar projects are not a product of "cookbook" engineering schemes. They require rigorous site selection, up front engineering, capital justification, and permitting before the first shovel hits the ground.
Five years cradle-to-operation for projects this size sound more realistic. I would be astounded if one of these could be done in less time.
I'm assuming priority on the order of the Manhattan Project.
I think that's been largely taken care of.
You may be astounded if we can do it in less than 5 years, but really.... if Obama can't show results before 2012, he's going to be in trouble.
I appreciate your optimism e-poet, but...
Is the public really tuned into this issue enough to support a Manhattan Style Project? I mean, here on the oil drum, we're all behind you. But John Q Public is more concerned about gasoline prices. Power supplies and global warming just aren't on the front burner for most people.
Also, no offense to the excellent thought experiment you have going on here...
1. How can you say that old reactor sites can be rehabilitated without adding substantial extra cost to the project? Even if some of the old equipment were still operable, it probably wouldn't function very long without substantial upgrade or maintenance cost.
2. Who has done this up front work you are referring to? [Note: Fast-tracking projects adds considerable cost]
3. All projects must get enough up-front engineering to say what they will cost "at a particular site". If you don't, then the overruns become a public spectacle (think Tennessee Valley Authority).
4. All permits must go through a public notification process. As engineers, we understand the simplicity of your approach, but I'm not so sure the public will be so pliable.
My hope is that Obama can get some traction on other issues because nuke plants take more time than a single term. IMHO.
The public never knew about the original until it was a fait accompli, and the public may finally be in a mood to listen to the experts. We only need the full-court press for the first few units, to get the engineering and production established.
Believe me, people are concerned about power supplies; anyone who has been even a day without power or is struggling to pay increased prices knows how important they are.
And on the rest:
You wouldn't be using any gear or buildings, you'd be using the sites. These have already been judged suitable for plants, have access to cooling water, and at least had rights-of-way for transmission lines. They also have spent fuel in dry-cask storage, which many communities would be very happy to be rid of; the jobs and taxes paid by the new facility would be welcomed as well.
Old designs are on the shelf. We'd want to update them, but the first units don't have to be perfect, just good enough to finalize the design for mass production (if the reactors were factory-built in truck-transportable pieces, the prototypes could even be replaced with the final design should that prove desirable). Paying a few billion to fast-track a handful of production prototype units would be cheap in the long run, and aren't we looking for fiscal stimulus anyway?
Only if the requirements change significantly based on the site. An MSR using open-cycle gas turbines with air as the working fluid wouldn't even need cooling water; it could be sited just about anywhere.
Yet another reason to re-use the sites of decommissioned reactors. The process could be bypassed by law for the first few units and replaced by vote of the locals; communities could be paid to take them, which is likely to be popular.
I really like what you are pushing here. Its just that I think most of the stimulus to be spent on energy will have to be fairly short-term (I'm assuming the buildup of government debt will create political pressure to cut back the stimulus, even before the economy fully recovers). And the bulk of stimulus money spent on energy needs must a a fairly rapid payoff (besides direct stimulus). It is the extra bank-per stimulus buck from cutting our mid-term fuel bills, that will be needed to pull us out of this (economic) dive. Without, that, the political penduleum will swing against the dems, before the project is complete.
You're right, the mid-term savings are extremely important. We can't have an economic recovery if increased oil demand spikes the price and sucks all the credit out of the economy again. This is why "shovel-ready" road expansion projects should not be funded, and acceleration of rail expansion should be on the list (even if the rails are privately owned). Moving freight from trucks to rail will cut demand for diesel, which will both reduce pump prices and increase export earnings. Electrifying rail will further cut diesel demand, as well as noise and pollution.
In fact Obama is making lots of terrible choices--Hillary Clinton Sec of State?!
Dr. Chu is another terrible choice IMO. He's got really no energy credentials except he ran a mid sized research lab(4000 employees) as a bureaucrat. The BP contract shows he can work with industry which is a bad sign. There are plenty of better energy experts around.
Dr. Hirsch would have been a much better choice also. He's just about the only one talking about an energy rescue
I find the notion that energy efficiency alone can solve falling fossil energy supplies is patently laughable. Since our gigantic existing infrastructure is inefficient the only way to increase efficiency is to replace it and save maybe 20%? Technological efficiency rises at 1% per year now and the easy fixes are already done.
We need to boost energy supplies albeit with minimum CO2 emissions.
If you don't think energy efficiency alone can solve all the problems some say it is, then Dr. Chu is a most *excellent* choice. If he puts money into GEN IV reactors, and steers R&D in that direction instead of staving it like it has been, we can expect to see results a lot faster than people think. It won't only be the US that benefits, but other countries that have both Gen IV R&D going but MSR/LFTR type reactors in the works as well (France is one).
I think one thing he (and Hansen who shares his vision) have done now is to raise the level of discourse to see nuclear as a potential solution to CO2 emissions.
David
Gen IV Reactors will not be ready anytime soon. Gen III are only being proposed for deployment by 2010. Current development timeline for Gen IV is 2030. That's a hell of a crash program to get them ready for implementation within the Obama presidency.
http://www.eei.org/industry_issues/energy_infrastructure/fuel_diversity/...
Raising the discourse is one thing. Getting results before he is voted out of office will be another..
Baloney.
There are no Gen IV nuke plants and Superphenix(it never produced its rated power), Monju-earthquake prone(FBR--molten sodium reactors) are closed. All this is old technology which has never caught on. The 'dream' of a nuclear power plant that burns up all uranium without waste is illogical. Breeders will produce incredibly radioactive waste rather than moderately radioactive LWR waste which is almost all U-238(dilution solution).
BTW, Hansen praises(agrees with) Obama who says that Yucca Mountain is a big waste problem. This puts him in the position of being against the LWR technology we have and for
breeders which don't exist.
Hansen also supports CCS technology as not only a clean solution for coal but as a method of sequestering atmospheric carbon by capturing CO2 from biomass--better than nukes!
People who are pushing nuclear for GW reasons are desperately trying to present any alternative to CO2 emitting coal power plants.
The tiny Enrico Fermi Fast Breeder Reactor#1 ran from 1957-1972 when it was shutdown due to a meltdown('We almost lost Detroit). It was replaced by a safer LWR. People
who talk about the safety of the nuclear power industry are talking about LightWaterReactors!! Not breeders or graphite reactors,etc.
The reason nuclear power isn't taking-off is because the technology other than LWR is a complete mess and LWRs mean more Yucca Mountains.
A comment about Jim Hansen's position of various technologies:
I've recently read a big fraction of what is available on the web (with weeding out duplicates and paying attention to dates of publication). There is an interesting progression of his thinking. Until quite recently, he ignored nuclear entirely. Now, he is much kinder in his evaluation of it. Be careful about dates of publication. His position has been changing, just as his position on target CO2 concentration has changed over time.
My impression is that all the changes are due to reasoned argument and further data. Change due to better understanding is in no sense 'selling out' to TPTB, but I have also seen him accused of that. IMHO, the accusation is very unfair.
I don't think Hansen has discussed the ins and outs of the various 'Gen XX' nuclear technologies. A few months ago, he was not technically qualified to enter into such a discussion. But he is a smart guy and may be coming up to speed very quickly.
FYI, the Monju reactor's sodium leak was in the secondary circuit, released no radioactivity and harmed no one. I'm sure the design of the temperature probe could be changed to make such accidents less likely. Another alternative is to use lead-bismuth as the coolant (the so-called "solder-pot reactor") instead of sodium.
Nay-sayers said the same thing about hybrids while oil was cheap. Oil doesn't look so cheap any more. Breeders will catch on when uranium supplies get tight, or when we get serious about dealing with the waste issue.
Anti-nukes have to argue both that uranium supplies are tight or waste is unmanageable (so we can't use LWR's) and breeders are not feasible. I see majorian is working hard on both parts.
Whereas a nuclear power plant that burns plutonium, americium, etc. instead of leaving it as a product is just good sense.
Yes, they will. This is a good thing. The level of radioactivity is inversely proportional to the half-life; there is only a limited amount of energy in the products, and the "hotter" they are, the faster they decay. Within a few hundred years the fission products would be less radioactive than yellowcake. You wouldn't have the highly toxic plutonium and americium giving you problems, because all but traces stay in the fuel cycle.
What you wind up with is waste which can be packaged in glass and just stacked in the desert somewhere, with passages for air to carry away the heat and an outer shell to keep the rain off. You could make the whole thing out of glass for longevity; it only has to last a few tens of decades, and piles of inert material in deserts last millennia even if they're as soft as limestone. The glass blocks would probably glow softly from Cerenkov radiation, fading over the years. Style the heaps as pyramids and you might even make money from tourism!
Certain fission products are a long-term isolation problem (Tc-99, I-129) but neutron irradiation can convert them to short-lived (Tc-99 + n -> Tc-100, half-life 17 seconds) or stable isotopes.
Edit: This was a reply to majorian, but it's showing to me as a reply to a reply to him.
I think it's generally a bad idea to building more nuclear power plants at the cusp of the descent of civilization. We're going to have enough trouble keeping things together as it is. We shouldn't add any more problems to our growing list.
And why is the descent of civilization in the offing? A lack of energy, or climate change? Nuclear power will help prevent both of those, and between IFR for uranium and MSR for thorium the existing nuclear waste problem can be eliminated forever.
E-P, I'm very interested in reading more about these new technologies. Reviews on the topic are few and far between around here, but when one comes up I'm all over it. Are you working on anything right now?
I'm not expert on either of these, and as the IFR dates to the early 90's and the MSR goes back to the 1950's (!) there's nothing really new about either of them; they've just been sidelined for political reasons.
I suggest this reading for introductions:
Integral Fast Reactor (Wikipedia)
Integral Fast Reactors: Source of Safe, Abundant, Non-Polluting Power (very light on technical details, no references, explains past policy errors)
Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (Wikipedia)
Like those glowing rose colored glasses, EP?
LWR are why nuclear power has a safe reputation and Monju/Superphenix are why fast breeders do not.
I see you are working hard trying to convince folks that
there is enough nuclear waste to run your IFR which will also produce enough electricity to save the world from the imminent energy crisis.
You appear to be in love with plutonium and the other transuranic actinides.
The original solution for the LWR plutonium problem was MOX, which is the fuel for FBR also. Only 1 % of LWR was is plutonium (only 50% fissile)...you'd need 40 LWRs
to fuel one IFR(fuel is 20%Pu MOX).
In a LWR, you put in 3.5% fissile material and get out .5% Pu-239, U-235 and get out .5% Pu garbage plus .5% actinides plus 1.5% radioactive gases plus 3% non radioactive fission products barium, krpton, etc. Even in a breeder you still only get 75% of produced plutonium to become fissile.
Today, the government is burning weapons grade plutonium as 33% MOX in commercial reactors to just get rid of it
to turn it into just plain old dirty nuclear waste.
How much weapons grade(90% fissile) Pu is there on earth? Only 200 tons enough to fuel 30 1GWe plants for 20 years.
Poor plutonium..more than enough to be deadly not enough around to be a real fuel source. Your solution--make more of it. You'll need a lot more to make fast neutron reactors a reality.
LWRs have had a few failures, but commercial units killed no one. Fast breeders went nowhere because uranium was so cheap for so long (gee, sound like any liquids you could name?), and the conversion of weapons-grade fissionables to PWR fuel depressed the price further. Now people like you are claiming that the low level of economic uranium reserves at the depressed prices mean nuclear power isn't viable in the long term, which is quite disingenuous.
As I said before, fast breeders don't need to use sodium for coolant. Lead or lead alloys will do for metal-fuel reactors. Molten-salt reactors can operate as thermal thorium breeders using fluoride salts, and fast breeders using chloride salts (the heavier chlorine atom reduces neutron speeds less, giving a "harder" neutron energy spectrum).
Of course there is. The potential IFR fuel includes the entire stock of uranium and transuranics in spent PWR fuel (roughly 30 times what was used up in the PWRs) plus all the depleted uranium left as a byproduct of enrichment (perhaps 7 times as much as the supply of PWR fuel), plus all the uranium we can mine in the future.
Thermal thorium breeders can turn every bit of Th-232 into fuel. Thorium is about 4x as abundant as uranium.
Quite the opposite; I want to destroy them. This requires a fast-neutron reactor or an accelerator-driven high-energy neutron source. Destroying them releases their energy, and anything worth doing is worth doing at an (energy) profit.
You're assuming that the fuel loads are the same. Fast-neutron reactors have a high power density and metallic fuel conducts heat out much faster than oxide fuel, so the power output per ton of IFR fuel is much higher than PWR fuel and the IFR core is smaller for the same power.
There's plenty of plutonium kicking around. Spent PWR fuel is around 1.0% Pu and 0.8% U-235. It's not doing us any good, so we might as well get rid of it and get some energy out of it.
As of 2002, US inventory of spent nuclear fuel was roughly 47,000 metric tons of uranium. At 1% Pu isotopes, that's about 470 tons of plutonium.
This is only needed to start an IFR; after that, the IFR breeds its own fuel from natural uranium and can be operated to be either a net breeder or destroyer of transuranics. If an IFR requires a 2-year supply of plutonium to start itself up and burns 1/3 ton/year/GW (calculated from your figure quoted above), the US supply would suffice to start ~700 GW of new capacity (which is more than US average power generation from all sources). The US could add new IFR capacity using on-going Pu discharges from PWRs, enriched U-235, or U-233 from thermal breeders. No fissionables need ever leave an IFR (or an MSR).
Plutonium is only the match. The goal is to use it to light the fire, and then enjoy the warmth.
Hyman Rickover would have been the perfect choice for Energy Secretary. He not only 'got' Peak Oil he practically invented it.
Do I have the wrong Hyman Rickover? It says he died in 1986:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover
That's the reason he would be perfect.
Dr. Chu
Sure it is.
LOL!
Good one!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I wanted to brief you all on Biochar (charcoal) for Carbon soil sequestration.
I thought these updates and endorsements may interest you,
Sen. Ken Salazar (Now Secretary Of Interior!) has done the most to nurse this biofuels system in his Biochar provisions in the 07 & 08 farm bill,
http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation...
Below are my current news & Links to major developments;
At USDA Dr.Jeffrey Novak is coordinating Biochar research.
I've had productive contacts with Douglas Lawrence, director NSCS & Farm bill coordinator, and through him, David Douds with ARS for MYC & VAM Fungi research, and Chris Nichols ARS glomalin research.
My other most successful efforts to date are continuing briefings to Michael Pollan (Food Column NYTs & author) over the last year.
In a recent National Public Radio interview, Michael Pollan talks about how he was approached by a Democratic party staffer about his New York Times article, The "Farmer & Chief" article is an open letter to the next president concerning U.S. agriculture/energy policy. The staffer wanted Pollan to summarize the article into a page or two to get it into the hands of Barack Obama. Pollan declined, saying that if he could have said everything that needed to be said in two pages, he wouldn't have written 8000 words.
Michael Pollan is well briefed and excited about Biochar technology, but did not include it in his "Farmer & Chief" article to President Obama, (Which he did read & cited in a speech) but I'm sure Biochar will be his 8001th word to him.
Changing World Technologies
Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio research . Thankfully we can do Terra Preta (TP) soil with off the shelf technology now.
Oil companies must come to see the overwhelming value of their fossil carbon as the best feedstock for the manufacture ( via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly, etc.) of virtually all things in the near future.
This convergences of different technologies will end the Combustion age.
TP starts as a soil nano technology with increased CEC, than a micro technology with our wee- beasties / fungus, and macro with bugs and worms.
Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!
Modern Pyrolysis of biomass is a process for Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration,10X Lower Methane & N2O soil emissions, and 3X Fertility Too.
Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration, Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.
Charles Mann ("1491") in the Sept. National Geographic has a wonderful soils article which places Terra Preta / Biochar soils center stage.
Please put this (soil) bug in your colleague's ears. These issues need to gain traction among all the various disciplines who have an iron in this fire.
The NGM cover reads "WHERE FOOD BEGINS"
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text
It's what Mann hasn't covered that I thought should interest you and Sen. Salazar;
NASA's Dr. James Hansen Global warming solutions paper and letter to the G-8 conference, placing Biochar / Land management the central technology for carbon negative energy systems.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
The many new university programs & field studies, in temperate soils; Cornell, ISU, U of H, U of GA, Virginia Tech, JMU, New Zealand, Germany and Australia.
Biochar data base;
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/?q=node
Glomalin's role in soil tilth, fertility & basis for the soil food web in Terra Preta soils.
POZNAN, Poland, December 10, 2008 - The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) announces that the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has submitted a proposal to include biochar as a mitigation and adaptation technology to be considered in the post-2012-Copenhagen agenda of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A copy of the proposal is posted on the IBI website at
The International Biochar Initiative (IBI).
Given the current "Crisis" atmosphere concerning energy, soil sustainability, food vs. Biofuels, and Climate Change what other subject addresses them all?
This is a Nano technology for the soil that represents the most comprehensive, low cost, and productive approach to long term stewardship and sustainability.
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
If pre-Colombian Kayopo Indians could produce these soils up to 6 feet deep over 15% of the Amazon basin using "Slash & CHAR" verses "Slash & Burn", it seems that our energy and agricultural industries could also product them at scale.
Harnessing the work of this vast number of microbes and fungi changes the whole equation of energy return over energy input (EROEI) for food and Bio fuels. I see this as the only sustainable agricultural strategy if we no longer have cheap fossil fuels for fertilizer.
We need this super community of wee-beasties to work in concert with us by populating them into their proper Soil horizon Carbon Condos.
Erich J. Knight
Shenandoah Gardens
1047 Dave Berry Rd.
McGaheysville, VA. 22840
(540) 289-9750
shengar@aol.com
Total CO2 Equivalence:
Once a commercial bagged soil amendment product, every suburban household can do it,
The label can tell them of their contribution, a 40# bag = 150# CO2 = 160 bags / year to cover my personal CO2 emissions. ( 20,000 #/yr , 1/2 Average )
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html
But that is just the Carbon!
I have yet to find a total CO2 equivalent number taking consideration against some average field N2O & CH4 emissions. The New Zealand work shows 10X reductions. As biochar proves to be effective at reducing nutrient run-off from agricultural soils, then there will accordingly be a reduction in downstream N2O emissions.
This ACS study implicates soil structure as main connection to N2O soil emissions;
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Paper41955.html
Biochar Studies at ACS Huston meeting;
578-I: http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4231.html
579-II http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4496.html
665 - III. http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4497.html
666-IV http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2008am/webprogram/Session4498.html
Most all this work corroborates char soil dynamics we have seen so far . The soil GHG emissions work showing increased CO2 , also speculates that this CO2 has to get through the hungry plants above before becoming a GHG.
The SOM, MYC& Microbes, N2O (soil structure), CH4 , nutrient holding , Nitrogen shock, humic compound conditioning, absorbing of herbicides all pretty much what we expected to hear.
Company News & EU Certification
Below is an important hurtle that 3R AGROCARBON has overcome in certification in the EU. Given that their standards are set much higher than even organic certification in the US, this work should smooth any bureaucratic hurtles we may face.
EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests
Subject: Fwd: [biochar] Re: GOOD NEWS: EU Permit Authority - 4 years tests successfully completed
Doses: 400 kg / ha – 1000 kg / ha at different horticultural cultivars
Plant height Increase 141 % versus control
Picking yield Increase 630 % versus control
Picking fruit Increase 650 % versus control
Total yield Increase 202 % versus control
Total piece of fruit Increase 171 % versus control
Fruit weight Increase 118 % versus control
There is list of the additional beneficial effects of the 3R FORMULATED BIOCHAREU DOSSIER for permit administration and summary of the results from 4 different Authorities who executed different test programme is under construction
I suggest these independent and accredited EU relevant Authority permit field tests results will support the further development of the biochar application systems on international level, and providing case evidence, that properly made and formulated (plant and/or animal biomass based) biochars can meet the modern environmental - agricultural - human health inspection standards and norm, while supporting the knowledge based economical development.
We work further on to expand not only in the EU but in the USA as well. My Cincinnati large scale carbonization project is progressing, hopefully the first industrial scale 3R clean coal - carbon plant will be ready in 2009.
Sincerely yours: Edward Someus (environmental engineer)
HOMEPAGE 3R AGROCARBON: http://www.3ragrocarbon.com
http://www.terrenum.net
EMAIL 1: edward@terrenum.net
I gotta wonder if this Chu is just regurgitating talking points or actually bothers to check others' calculations (11°F is equivalent to 6.1°C in this context). What a goof-up (but excellent shock value for those that just eat this crap in any form it's served).
That Obama's appointments have the credentials they do, that Obama has the creditentials and charisma he does will be our undoing.
It's one thing when people who are bumbling idiots try to lead you off a cliff. It's another when its the Pied Piper.
Oil is depleting, hydrocarbons are depleting, nuclear will be late, insufficient, and unsupportable, and the renewables also insufficient. Our energy budget will decrease, and over time decrease drastically. I see no way around that.
So there is only one option: plan to live on an ever declining energy budget. The measures so far proposed don't even come close. But they will mislead people into thinking the issue is being addressed.
What's the max on the down arrows? Go ahead.
Dave, you not only get an up arrow from me, I'm breaking my long silence on this site to fully agree with you. I've been mostly staying away from all of this and enjoying other things. Now that we've survived the Bush administration, or at least it seems that we will, I'm starting to pay attention again. But I have little "faith" in this new administration. Obama has heavily touted "clean coal", a fantasy solution. And I still remember him telling us that the high cost of gasoline was because of "greedy oil companies". So I expect the usual, different rhetoric with little visible change. Even though we're all now conditioned to accept higher energy costs, few understand that after that comes the shortages. Being blacked out here in New Hampshire for five days was inconvenient, but take away the gasoline and the propane and the suburbanites will start eating each other in no time.
I agree a higher gas tax is needed. And I like the rebate idea. How about a $2 per gallon tax along with an annual rebate in the form of a gas card? That way, every person would be able to buy up to a set quantity of fuel without having to pay the tax. People who consume more fuel will run their card out quickly and end up paying the tax. People who do not consume a lot of gasoline will be able to sell or trade their gas cards.
And all special interests can go to hell. No lobbying for exceptions. This would be a great addition to a fair tax plan for when the corrupt income tax system finally collapses under its own weight.