Not So Easy

Today's Herald editorializes on Vermont's future electricity supply.  There are two major flaws in an otherwise soundly argued editorial.  The first is that

Both sources [Vermont Yankee and HydroQuebec] have the capability to go offline; Yankee is in the midst of protracted hearings to determine whether it should be allowed to continue operation for a further 20 years.

It assumes Yankee is on life support and will likely die in 2012. The editorial could have argued that Yankee is healthy and can safely be relied on to give Vermont decades more power. 

The second is the editorial's main conclusion that

But the state also needs to look at, for example, natural gas, which puts out about one-third the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. One modern, relatively clean gas plant would provide as much power as Yankee.

But natural gas is in increasingly short supply and its price has risen dramatically.  Relying on a natural gas-fired power plant for base load power would be much more expensive than either Yankee or HydroQuebec. Natural gas prices track oil prices fairly closely, which means expensive power.   Natural gas is not something I'd want to rely on as a source of baseload electricity.   And there's the small detail that there is only one pipeline carrying natural gas into Vermont, and I doubt that it can carry enough gas to generate replacement power for Yankee.

The choices Vermont has are (1) relicense Yankee and hope that that gives us cheap power, (2) hope we can renew the HydroQuebec contracts at a low cost.   Either of these give us half the power we need if either of those two sources do not come through.  So we've still got a problem.  We can (3) sign long term contracts for power from other base load sources out of state, wherever that would be, and hope that we can negotiate for a reasonable price, (4) deregulate the electricity industry and allow competition to help reduce prices.

All of these involve a lot of uncertainty about prices and availability, which should make all of us nervous.

Comments

[claire]

It is a given that electricity and energy in general is going to cost more and lots more in the future.

We can prepare for this or we can hide our heads in the sand and hope for the best.

Read Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for US energy Policy

http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/index.html

One way to prepare is to save 30-40% in electricity use and cost simply through energy conservation and efficiency.

Second, increase all renewable energy sources. as in cover the parking lots and buildings with solar PV.

Third, take responsibility for everything you do each day. Think about the affect of what you just ate, drove, sat on, watched, bought is having on the planet, economy, community, you.

Each of us can make changes in our daily lives. We have reduced our energy use 80% in the last 5 yrs and we are lower middle class. No big expenses.

start simple. power strips on all electronics and switched truly off.

hang clothes outside

drive max of 55 mph. if we all did, we won't need to import oil from the middle east.

grow some vegetables

use a cloth bag all the time.

there are lots more to do.

Try the low carbon diet

http://www.empowermentinstitute.net/lcd/

[James Ehlers]

Congratulations to the Herald for making at least some logical concessions. I guess since they did not have a recommendation on where they proposed drilling for natural gas and through whose neighborhoods those pipelines would run, they avoided it.

As for efficiency, it is one of the foundations for modern advancement. The more efficiently power is produced, the more there is to use. It would be advisable for them to seek expert input on the matter of efficiency before citing as a way to use less ... it is not physically possible. That is the beauty of the nuclear reaction: its efficiency. There is no more efficient way for Man to produce power than with the atom. Anyone who has attempted to produce power with the rubbing of two sticks knows how terribly inefficient that is.

Hopefully, they are not using the term efficiency as an euphemism for social control. Most do. They do not seek efficiency from a scientific standpoint, but rather from a behavioral standpoint. The two are not the same. Efficiency in power production gives us more with less. In sociology, it gives us less so others can have more.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[claire chang]

Nuclear reactors are about the MOST WASTEFUL way to boil water. The problem is that only 35% of the thermal heat is being used to boil water to steam which turn the turbines. The rest of the thermal energy is wasted, not even used for heating buildings.

Plus there is only a limited amt of uranium. and even that needs to be enriched by the dirtiest coal plant in Paducah, KY releasing different greenhouse gases.

Reprocessing is a failure. President Carter, a Navy nuclear engineer, closed the only reprocessing site in the US and it is still a superfund site.

"Too Cheap to Meter" was the 50's slogan. Somehow that isn't ringing so true.

And finally the waste, 12 ft tall casks on the banks of the CT river just 1.5' above the 500 yr floodplain.

Ever looked at the electricity used by a fridge from the 80's compared to an energy star rated one? We've come a long way in energy efficiency and that wasn't socialist. and we've got a long way to go in energy efficiency too. There are programs for real time metering of electricity use so that people can make informed choices about their electricity use. AC in the hottest days of the summer are the greatest cost of peak load power. even $1/kw. and on those hottest days that sun is shining. solar pv could help with the peak load.

[James Ehlers]

Dear Miss Change,
Waste is part of the conversion of matter process. Waste is not a negative in this sense; it is necessary.

The technology you cite is 50 years old or more. I encourage to learn about the advancements made in nuclear reactor design since then. Some reactors do not even use water for cooling, but rather a metallurgical process. Other reactors run on previously "spent" rods. Recycling, if you will.

The efficiency of solar above the 38th Parallel is irrefutably a net loss. Below the 38th, battery technology is currently not compatible with modern demands.

Solar will not produce hydrogen. Hydrogen is what will address this country's dependence on gasoline, and address real atmospheric pollutants. Nuclear will give you hydrogen.

While many refrigerators are more efficient, they also consume more power. % efficiency = useful power produced x 100 / total power used

90% efficiency ... could mean using 9 watts or 900 watts ... the efficiency rate is still the same if the power produced is relative, as well.

Just because your refrigerator is rated as efficient, it doesn't mean it is using less power.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[Doug]

Waste is always a negative. If anything, it represents the inefficiency of the process.

Your remark regarding efficiency is woefully misleading and not true at all. If you compare similar size refridgerators from the 80's to those now available, you will find that the modern fridge does in fact use less electricity(power). Comparing energy star refridgerators to non energy star refridgerators, you will find the energy star refridgerators do infact use less power. In both cases, the refridgerators use less power and provide the same output and therefore are more efficient.

I suggest you study on use of solar. Maximum power point tracking has made solar much more viable in extreme northern and southern latitudes and battery technology does in fact meet modern demands.

[Karen Kerin]

We can build small shop fabricated nukes based on the 100% safe naval designs and become independent of all the oil problems and well placed, they can be mutually supporting. No chopped up birds supplying electricity 40% of the time and no silly solar in the furthest thing from the sunshine state.
If we get going now, we can head off the worst of the problems and with Toyota, Honda, General Motors and BMW already putting hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market, we could be sitting pretty. During off peak hours we can make hydrogen and oxygen, both of which are very desirable. Waste heat can do many good things for industrial purposes or for greenhouses to raise food crops we import in winter. There is a lot good and not much to worry us with small nukes. Besides, it is a good employment with local investors for naval trained operators.

[James Ehlers]

Dear Doug,
Thank you for this opportunity.

I find it interesting that you find the Second Law of Thermodynamics inaccurate.

If we were plants, utilizing a diffuse source of energy--the sun's light--then solar would address our needs. This is not the case, however. Our modern society depends on highly concentrated sources of power, i.e., the laser. Using the laser as just one example, the only way to move from lower ordered fuel sources to more highly ordered power is to convert energy, and that conversion requires a loss of heat. To create 20kWh of laser photons, one must go through the conversion process starting with roughly 6,600 kWh of a primary fuel. At each step in the process of getting from 6,600 kWh of gas or hydro,(pick a source) there is a shedding of heat in the ordering process that finally gives us 20 kWh of photons to operate on a heart valve. Wasteful, yes, but unnecessary, no. There is no other way to get there.

Solar is diffuse, not ordered. To order it one must go through the same process of shedding heat. Fine. A boiler, for example, will "waste" some 15 percent. A laser, some 90 percent. The power density of a steam is just above 5 kW/m cubed. The power density of a laser is, on the other hand, 10 to the fourth power kW/m cubed. "Waste" is a negative? Ask the heart patient about to be operated on by a steam-powered spotlight.

There are no exceptions when it comes to increasing order ... high-grade energy must be added and some amount of it is shed in the form of low-grade energy:heat. You call this waste. I call it progress.

The sun, itself, goes through the same process. Solar is nothing more than our capturing of its waste. Why bother with the lowest grade of the sun's power when we have the ability to work with atoms that generate that waste? Of course, we are talking about fission for the time being, not fusion.

Citing the numbers of some people much brighter than I, all the world's plants capture about 2,000 Quads of energy from the sun. Humans use 345. Take that energy away from the plants, and what is left over to grow trees?

To satisfy the demands of New York City, alone, a square area twice the size of the city would have to be covered with photovoltaic cells. Efficient? Wasteful? Who is figuring the environmental impacts of that? Nonetheless, solar has interested me since I won the science medal at the age of 12 for the solar-powered engine I put together. Ironically, it is probably the same experience that led to my interest in harnessing the atom directly. Why mess with the sun's waste when you can go to the source?

As to the refrigerator question, we can only have an intelligent discussion on the matter if we were to factor the energy necessary to produce this new "efficient" refrigerator versus the energy saved by continuing to run one, perhaps not rated for marketing, until the end of its mechanical life.

I appreciate your passion, but there is no emotion in the numbers. And if you truly believe waste is a negative, try starting a fire without a heat sink.

Modernity is not for everyone, it would seem, at least rhetorically, but the vast majority of us like our computers despite what we articulate. A Pentium 4 processor uses 20 watts per square cm, or 10,000 times more in power density than a solar cell can produce. And we have not even discussed the energy required and the environmental impacts associated with the creation of PV cells.

Incidentally, steam, a 200-year old technology, has about the same power density as solar.

If you really wanted to curb energy usage, you would seek to lower efficiency not raise it. Not too many Neanderthals had a Mac, nor very long life-spans, for that matter.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[Doug]

The laws are what they are and in manmade processes there is always room for improvement. That means less entropy and greater efficiency. It's nonsensical to opt for a less efficient process simply because waste is necessary.

I didn't assume we were replacing an old refridgerator with a new one. Ideally, we would also factor in the cost of making the 80's refridgerator as well as the decommisioning costs of both.

[James Ehlers]

Doug,
One does not "opt" for a less efficient process. The type of power needed, in case most cases, is the determining factor. A wood-buring stove is suitable for heating your home (less ordered), but not powering your automobile (more highly ordered).

Sure, there is always room for improvement,and the atom represents that. Less entropy does not represent greater efficiency. On this point, you are emphatically misinformed. More highly ordered power (less entropy) requires the "waste" of more energy, faster. If our society was content with a life dominated by the steam engine, there would be more entropy and greater efficiency, mathematically speaking. Try plugging an IPOD into a boiler, though. Nuclear, again, is the natural step in the progress to which you refer. Imagine a country of automobiles powered by H. Nuclear can give you this, today; solar cannot. It's in the math and laws.

I would be interested in reviewing the numbers you work up on the refrigerator comparison.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[Doug]

Sounds like you've been reading The Bottomless Well. Certainly conservatives latched onto that like it was a new bible. The truth is somewhere in between Mill's/Huber's notions and peak oil, etc. All are intelligent nineteenth century guesses.

Less entropy does require more work. Efficiency can be acheived if the same entropy can by provided by a more efficient source of that work. One does have to be careful. As more becomes diffuse, there is less available to provide output.

Frankly, people opt for a less efficient processes and systems all the time. We all do it for huge variety of reasons and sometimes out of ignorance. We can go back to the refridgerator. The most efficient design for an upright refridgerator is one that places the common refridgerator on it's head. The freezer in on the bottom, the pump is on the top. Why is this configuration not popular? Perhaps people want warm air blown on their feet. Perhaps it's dimensions and aesthetics. I suppose for those toting Huber's works, it's because they believe waste is necessary.

[James Ehlers]

Dear Doug,
I have read that book and several others, plus a host of physics text and periodicals, both out of personal interest and some out of professional necessity as a former engineering officer in the Navy.

It appears you confuse process with design based on an erroneous conclusion that people make purchases based on a desire to "waste." Waste in a purchase decision is usually correlative, not causative. Not so in the process if producing power. I do agree, however, we make purchases based on aesthetics, ignorance, status, perceived need, actual need, and host of other reasons. I imagine you do, as well. Your point relative to the laws of physics is immaterial. They are not guesses. They are proven, thus laws. It is not religion nor political affiliation that determines the potential vs. kinetic engery of the sun's rays, corn, grass, wind, coal, oil and the atom.

Shall we stick to the message rather than the messenger? Prejudice serves neither the judged nor those judging.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[Doug]

No confusion here at all. Perhaps the example was too simple. The point was that sometimes the laws of physics are immaterial.

[James Ehlers]

Dear Doug,
Perhaps the laws of physics are immaterial relative to ideology and religion,this I will concede, but not in power generation.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers

[Jamey Holstein]

Interesting thread - good arguments by all.

It seems to me, if looked at from an objective view point - energy deficiency can be solved by science and capitolism. Humans consume energy, and every human in US society requires X amount of energy in their life. Thus, the more people, the more energy will be required - simple...

Energy exists all around us, in wind, hydro, solar and other forms, and in massive amounts. The problem is to harness these sources in an "efficient" manor. You COULD powewr NYC using todays solar technology quite easily by employing off-shore solar, wind and hydro-thermal farms, but could we do so efficiently? Depends upon the cost we are willign to bear today for a continuing souce tomorrow. At some point, the market will meet a critical turning point (I don''t think it is too far away).

Nuclear is a highly effient form of energy prodcution, but it comes with a cost, mostly a long lived, toxic waste product and, in todays environment, a security risk. I am fine with nuclear produciton, so long as we store our waste here in Vermont rather than push it off on another state/somebody else (the VT way). Are you willing to live next to a nuclear waste facility with your family? If so, all is good. Nuclear is good, but not the ultimate answer.

Wind/solar/geo-thermal power is still in realitve infancy and, if we can meet most of our needs with these sources in the future, would that not be a good thing?

Necesity is the mother of invention. Capitolism is driven by need and requirement. Both always merge at some critical point. The future is bright if we can seek a common goal of energy independence as a nation, whatever the source. It is obvious to me that, no matter what, depencence on other regions/countries, such as the Middle East, is a big mistake and must be corrected with good old American capitolism and euntropronearship.

Whatta you think?

[James Ehlers]

Dear Jamey,
I am not sure how fallacious arguments can be quantified as good, but, nonetheless. I appreciate your apparently accommodating personality, regardless.

Neither wind nor solar are in their infancy. Solar has been around since the 1960s and wind came right after fire. The Phoenicians, Vikings, Greeks, and every major civilization after them made extensive use of it.

I agree with you that continued unnecessary dependence on foreign countries for our energy supply is foolish, but our ignorance of and naive attitudes towards nuclear power will, in all likelihood, have us dependent and woefully insufficiently powered by ancient technologies such as the sun and wind. We should expect to find our culture in similar predicaments to those who previously had no choice but to rely on such variable and diffuse sources of energy. We have a choice, however. As long you frame the discussion in terms of "waste," I believe you will do us more harm than good. For example, do you not eat because you will need to dispose of your "waste" some hours later? Of course, not. I purposely pose a ridiculous question to demonstrate how nonsensical the discussion of energy issues, nationwide, has become. We could be energy independent, free of geopolitical entanglements, operating electric vehicles, purifying our air and water, TODAY! The technology exists now. As is usual, fear precludes most humans from reaching their true potential, and nothing more. Fear ... Simple, almost child-like fear of the dark. We do not understand it, therefore it must be bad. Scary monsters. Silliness. I have slept within in feet of a reactor, and if the NRC would allow it, I would have one in my home. One day perhaps we all will ... if the monsters don't get us.

As to the "waste" issue, yes, I would live next to such a complex. For if you follow the issues of nuclear power production by-products, you would find there is an engineering firm in Israel today that is in the process of perfecting the conversion of spent rods to inert glass. I would also like to have that company located in Vermont, but that is less likely to happen given this state's attitude toward business is only slightly less intolerant than it it is towards truly "green," abundant, independent sources of fuel.

Getting back to wind and solar, people never seem to want to discuss the distribution and storage issues. Why? Because they are unfeasible. Mathematically and economically unfeasible here, except if one does not mind losing money when heating their potable water. And, if people find nuclear "waste" scary, they really do not want to know how solar panels are manufactured (Consider reviewing this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html) and what goes into the batteries to store the trickle (from a base load perspective)of power they generate.

American capital and entrepreneurs would have the troops out of Iraq long before any Republican or Democrat president, if only the American public were not ironically scared of the light. Reactors can do this. Solar panels and wind turbines cannot. Much opposition to nuclear is fueled by some wind and solar companies for realization the public cannot be sold on the technology of the Greek gods as long as they are getting cheap, reliable, environmentally-friendly power in abundance from 21st Century technology. Solar and wind have some specific application, and that should be exploited, but it cannot and will not power our base load demands.

Maybe if more adults were truly scared of the dark, we could accomplish something meaningful with respect to this country's energy policy and foreign policy.

Sincerely,
James Ehlers