As many of my readers have probably already surmised, I don't confine my writing and commenting on nuclear issues just to NEI Nuclear Notes. I try to keep an eye on what folks are saying on other blogs, and it's not out of the ordinary for me to shoot an email off to another blogger, or leave a comment where I think it might help.
That also means talking with anti-nukes pretty regularly. Granted, there are plenty of people on the other side of the fence who will never be convinced of the benefits of nuclear energy. Instead, I try to hop into conversation where we might be able to reach folks who either are willing to be persuaded or just haven't made up their minds. And sometimes I just like to clear up some misperceptions, like this comment that I found over at Anthropik:
In terms of direct effects, irradiation is a proven and safe method of retarding spoilage and killing bacteria that causes food borne diseases. And if it takes longer for produce to rot, you don't need to grow as much food. As for drinking water, there are already plenty of plans around the world to leverage nuclear energy to desalinate water. Further, because nuclear energy doesn't emit pollution like Mercury, NOx and SOx, it also contributes to keeping our air and water clean too.
But there's another non-obvious benefit, and that's in the area of natural gas supply. As we've said many times, because the U.S. overbuilt natural gas fired electric generating capacity in the 1990s, we've put incredible strain on natural gas supply. And one sector of the American economy that has gotten battered because of this is agriculture:
Like I said, there's more here than meets the eye.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Natural Gas, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
That also means talking with anti-nukes pretty regularly. Granted, there are plenty of people on the other side of the fence who will never be convinced of the benefits of nuclear energy. Instead, I try to hop into conversation where we might be able to reach folks who either are willing to be persuaded or just haven't made up their minds. And sometimes I just like to clear up some misperceptions, like this comment that I found over at Anthropik:
Nuclear Energy doesn't even provide what civilization will need in the short run (next decade)--FOOD. Modern Agrobusiness, uses massive amounts of petrochemicals to allow depleted soil to produce foodproducts. Having Nuclear powered tractors wouldn't cut it, food production would decrease. No point in having the lights on, computer working, fridge on if you don't have food in the fridge. As it stands much of the food products in the US require Oil even if the energy for equipment could be replaced in short-order with 'alternate' energy sources.We've dealt with the cost question before, but what I was really concerned with was the statements about food and water.
(snip)
Building Nuclear power plants are Billion dollar ventures, and take a fair amount of time. When it comes down to it, potable water & food in the belly will not come from Nuclear. So if anyone wants to be a techno-optimist, you are again left with 'praying for NanoBots' to turn the world into a Nano-Digital playground where whoever controls the technology can turn carbon monoxide into clean water etc. etc.
In terms of direct effects, irradiation is a proven and safe method of retarding spoilage and killing bacteria that causes food borne diseases. And if it takes longer for produce to rot, you don't need to grow as much food. As for drinking water, there are already plenty of plans around the world to leverage nuclear energy to desalinate water. Further, because nuclear energy doesn't emit pollution like Mercury, NOx and SOx, it also contributes to keeping our air and water clean too.
But there's another non-obvious benefit, and that's in the area of natural gas supply. As we've said many times, because the U.S. overbuilt natural gas fired electric generating capacity in the 1990s, we've put incredible strain on natural gas supply. And one sector of the American economy that has gotten battered because of this is agriculture:
Testifying before a House Small Business subcommittee, Kruse, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau and a member of the AFBF [American Farm Bureau Federation] Board of Directors, said the United States'’ failed energy policy cost U.S. agriculture more than $6 billion in added expenses during the 2003 and 2004 growing seasons.And if we build more nuclear generating capacity, we can take some of that pressure off of the natural gas supply, and give some relief to the agricultural sector. And we haven't really even begun to discuss the use of hydrogen or plug-in hybrids in agricultural applications.
Natural gas is especially important to agriculture, Kruse explained, because it is used to produce nitrogen fertilizers and farm chemicals, as well as electricity for lighting, heating, irrigation, and grain drying. Natural gas can account for nearly 95 percent of the cost of nitrogen fertilizer.
"“Between 2000 and 2003, the average retail cost of nitrogen fertilizer skyrocketed from $100 per ton to more than $350 per ton,"” Kruse said.
According to Kruse and Farm Bureau, domestic exploration and recovery of energy resources using sensible, environmentally sound methods must begin immediately. Greater use of renewable energy sources including ethanol and biodiesel also will go a long way toward solving our nation's energy woes, Kruse said.
Farm Bureau also supports incentives for the use of clean coal technology in electric power generation and the use of nuclear energy.
Like I said, there's more here than meets the eye.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Natural Gas, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics
Comments
What is it about methane that is useful for ag chemicals? It's the 4 hydrogen atoms of CH4. Methane is the hydrogen source for ag chemicals like NH4 and NH3.
What is needed to do this magic transform of CH4 to NH4 or NH3? Heat and pressure, which is also often generated with CH4 since it is already at the plant.
Perhaps you can use your interest and knowledge of nuclear facilities to imagine how the necessary hydrogen, heat and pressure could be co-generated.
NH3 is not only a fertilizer, it is also a fuel for alkaline fuel cells., and a useful refrigerant - something else of agricultural interest.
If you put your mind to it you could spin an interestiung tale of nuclear benefits to ag.
As the price of natural gas rises nuclear and renewable fertilizer manufacture will become profitable again.
And even if that doesn't happen due to economics, it should happen anyway. Combustion of fossil fuels is utterly immoral, pure evil.
Also, nuclear energy powers submarines for the navy and rockets for NASA. Powering a tractor can be feasible. It only takes a few kilograms of nuclear fuel to send a rocket to Pluto. You don't need a reactor.
Anyway, our discussion on Anthropik was in light of the idea of "Peak Oil," with mounting evidence that we are currently at Hubbert's Peak. If Peak Oil is going to lead to the collapse of civilization, it will be due to a high depletion rate--something over the next 10-20 years. So, assuming hydrogen cells do work out (and there's no guarantee they will--that's why they're still in development), we're going with the estimate of 30 years before they're economically viable on a global scale? That's still 10 years too late, even if all those aforementioned "if's" turn out just the way you hope--and when has that ever happened before?
The cost would be prohibitive, with heavy shielding and everything. Not to speak of the awesome proliferation threat. Every farmer would be a potential nuclear weapons power.
On hydrogen fuel cells: don't count on them. They are really expensive, have vast technical challenges and lack any kind of hydrogen distribution infrastructure. Furthermore, their thermodynamical efficiency is really bad. And they are always, like fusion, a few decades away.
Electrolysis 85 % * fuel cell 40 %= 30-35 %
There is an alternative that is cheaper, vastly more thermodynamically efficient, no need for a new distribution system and about ot hit the market in the next years.
Electric cars (efficiency: battery 80 % * electric motor 95 % = 70-80 %.
Except this time they won't have bad range and speed or long recharge times since they won't use lead acid batteries but lithium ion ones.
Mitsubishi will launch a number of electric cars (the "MIEV's") in 2010. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/mitsubishi_to_d.html
And battery development is going really, really fast at the moment, in differnece to fuel cell development.
"The A123Systems batteries promise up to 10x longer life, 5x power gains and dramatically faster charge time (more than 90% capacity in five minutes) over conventional high-power battery technology."
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/02/china_bak_batte.html
The submarine fleet is relatively small. The automobile fleet is ... decidedly not. Getting this technology to scale is going to be a major concern, and scale is one of those deceptive little problems that everybody tends to ignore, and winds up being one of the most significant hurdles any project faces.
A much better idea than using nuclear power to make hydrogen for cars is to cut out the middleman and supply electricity directly to the batteries of the car.
* It is cheaper.
* It is simpler.
* The technology is here now, or very soon. No need to wait 20 years.
* It is three times as efficient, and hence you need only 1/3 as many reactors (still you'll need hundreds or thousands for the entire world).
There is no need to think about nuclear engines powering tractors in order for nuclear power to significantly help in the effort to power tractors. You do not even have to think about implementing technologies like hydrogen production or even fuel cells.
All we really need to do is to reasonably quickly expand the use of nuclear engines in already proven applications to take markets away from oil and gas.
Certainly, submarine engines use a different technology than do commercial reactors, but that choice is made for reasons that do not affect commercial ships. The NS Savannah, the Otto Hahn, the Mitsu and the Russian icebreakers demonstrate that low enriched uranium can fuel ship sized reactors.
There are thousands of diesel engines operating in the world to supply electricity in places where ship sized nuclear power plants can fit.
There is also a proven way to crack water and combine it with coal to produce a very clean burning diesel fuel using the Fischer-Tropsh process. Nuclear power can make this process more efficient by contributing the heat required for the first stage of the process.
There are lots of ways to use the energy stored in atoms to stretch the available fuel.
Just like an oil plant is cheaper than a nuclear plant when oil is cheap, an oil ship will be cheaper than a nuclear ship until the oil price reaches a certain level.
What price level might that be? Any guesstimates?