Congress Must Eliminate the Cellulosic Ethanol Mandate

    Michael McCoy has a 2-page article in the October 8 issue of C&E News entitled, "Enzymes Poised for Cellulosic Success".
    The article covers the commercial use of enzymes in converting corncobs and cornstalks to sugars, which are then available for fermentation by yeast to produce ethanol. The ethanol would then be used as an additive to gasoline, in order to reduce the need for petroleum.
    Presently, ethanol for such uses is produced from corn kernels, which are much easier to hydrolyze to sugars.
    The objective of the project is to use waste products, such as corncobs and cornstalks in preference to the edible kernels. However, such plant material is normally not considered waste. It is usually ground and stored as silage for cattle feed.
    There are number of companies involved in the development of enzymes for cellulose hydrolysis. One effort this has been a grant of $34 million by the US Department of Energy for projects run by Novozymes and three other companies.. In back of that, Congress has previously mandated production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels (ethanol) by 2022 and has specified that 16 billion gallons of that must be derived from cellulose.
    The challeng has been to get the cost of the enzyme portion of the ethanol production process to lower values. It had originally been $6 per gallon of ethanol produced, and quickly dropped to $1 per gallon.. It is now $.50 per gallon and is anticipated to drop to $.30 per gallon of ethanol produced.
    While all those numbers are interesting, there are other aspects. The first is how those costs compare with the cost of hydrolysis using acidic hydrolysis of cellulose. More importantly, how does the cost of ethanol itself compare with the cost of gasoline derived only from petroleum, while also taking into consideration the fact that one gallon of ethanol has a lower energy content than 1 gallon of petroleum derived gasoline.
    Congress passed the mandate requiring 16 billion gallons of cellulose derived ethanol some years ago. That was a time when petroleum production technology was at a considerably lower level than at the present. Congress made the mandate to relieve US requirement for petroleum imports, but that is no longer necessary because of the probability recent pressures on the Federal Administration will eliminate many of the present restrictions and lead to considerably increased US production of petroleum.
    However, it will be up to Congress to eliminate the mandate, and obviously the sooner the better in order to avoid continued frittering away of substantial taxpayer funds on a non-justifiable project.

Nuclear Power Plant Waste Storage

    In his article, entitled "Talk, No Action on Nuclear Waste Plan" (C and E News, 10/1/12), Jeff Johnson reports on the comments of Brent Scowcroft, chairman of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
    The US has 104 nuclear power plants that have already produced 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste. They will also continue to generate 2000 metric tons of waste per year in their operation to provide electricity. The problem is the disposal of that nuclear power plant waste.
    Because the nuclear power plant waste is highly radioactive and will remain so for a great many years, it has been the intention to store it deep underground. The major site for storage consideration has been Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The cost of study and possibly some storage preparation has been $12 billion over the last 30 years. Residents of Nevada have been opposed to storage at this site and President Obama has recently agreed to cancel any consideration of storage at that location.
    Let's look at some detail concerning how a nuclear plant operates and generates nuclear waste.
    Uranium is first processed to increase its concentration of one of its constituents (Isotope 235). The enriched uranium is made into pellets and loaded into tubes called "fuel rods". Each rod is about 14 feet long and about a half inch in diameter. The rods are then bundled to about 200 rods per bundle. The bundles are loaded into the nuclear reactor, where they generate heat to produce steam which is used by standard turbines to generate electricity. The bundles have an operating life of 18 to 36 months, after which time they are no longer efficient heat produces and must be removed and replaced with new bundles. The waste bundles are stored in isolated pools of water, where their radioactivity diminishes. At a relatively low point of radioactivity, the bundles are removed from the pools and can be stored dry. However, the bundles are still dangerously radioactive and must be stored away from humanity for perhaps 100 years. It is these 70,000 metric tons of bundles that we are concerned with.
    Other than storage, consideration has been given to processing the bundles, to separate the various radioactive components, some of which can be reused in new fuel rods, other components for other operations, such as medical, and finally leaving about 1/5 the original quantity, which would require long-term storage.
    In the processing, one of the separated components would be plutonium, which can be used to construct an atomic bomb. Presumably with that consideration, Congress passed the NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1982, which was "An Act to provide for the development of repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel." While this Act does not prohibit the processing of nuclear waste, it puts all handling of nuclear waste under government control and concentrates on storage rather than processing.
    If the intent of Congress in 1982 was to reduce the quantity of plutonium available for stealing and the outlaw preparation of an atomic bomb, let's take a look at the present global availability of plutonium.
    Processing of nuclear power plant waste is now done in France, India, Japan, Russia, and UK. That total annual processing capacity is indicated as 5600 metric tons per year. Another source gives a worldwide processing capacity of 4000 metric tons per year. let's take the low figure.
    The recoverable amount of plutonium by processing is about 1%. From 4000 metric tons, about 40 metric tons of plutonium is produced annually. In addition, 90,000 metric tons of waste nuclear power plant fuel has already been processed since the beginning of nuclear electricity production. That makes another 900 metric tons of plutonium already available. In terms of pounds, almost 2 million pounds of plutonium have been produced, and another 88,000 pounds are produced annually.
    The amount of accumulated nuclear power plant waste, which has been discussed for storage at Yucca Mountain is 70,000 metric tons, with continued generation of 2000 metric tons per year. If we were to process 70,000 metric tons, another 1.5 million pounds of plutonium would be available.
    Plutonium is useful in preparing new nuclear power plant fuel, which is and would continue to be the main consumption.
    From a production viewpoint, US processing would almost double the global quantity of plutonium produced to 3.5 million pounds. Since it takes only 20 pounds of plutonium to make an outlaw plutonium bomb, would US processing of nuclear power plant waste really increase the likelihood of preparation and use of an outlaw plutonium bomb?
    I believe it's time for the US to revise its policy concerning processing nuclear power plant waste. Government already has control of this waste through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Government should now solicit bids from private industry to process this accumulated waste and future generated waste. The bids should be in dollars per pound and the lowest bid accepted, providing the conditions of safety and security are met. As the waste contractor picks up the waste from each utility site, utilities would be charged for the amount released. However the agreement should also include dollar credits for the quantities of recovered uranium 235 and plutonium or an actual return of the material to the utility for use in preparation of new fuel. The cost of the processing operation would be passed on to consumers as an increase in dollars per kilowatt hour charge.
    Processing will reduce the quantity of long-term waste storage space to about a fifth of the original, which will also decrease the intensity of argument. It is likely that there are locations with  populations, which would have no objection to nuclear waste storage and may actually welcome it. Another bid system should be used for communities to accept the remainder of processed waste. Qualified bidders would also need to meet the geological limitations required for such storage and also have state approval. The low bidder would then charge the processing company a one time fee for perpetual storage of every pound of residual waste delivered by the processor. Processor payments to the storage site holder would also be charged back to the original utilities for increasing customer electricity charges.
    The successful processing bidder would have to build a plant. Government should take no part in the funding for such construction, but should apply reasonable regulations for safety and security. The funding would come from private enterprise, whereby the bidder would fund the operation from loans of various sorts, including bonds and stock issues. Preparation of the storage site would use a similar system

Residential Electricity from Rooftop Solar Panels

    The basis of this discussion concerning advantages and disadvantages of residential electricity from rooftop solar panels is from the following file:
http://solarcellcentral.com/cost_page.html    Anonymous CJ has taken the position that rooftop panels are a fantasy. His latest comment is as follows:
    "You must be amazed at the logic of this report:

    1. A 5kw roof panel installation with subsidies provides power at an annual rate of $654.  Purchased power would cost $926 for an annual saving of $272 on an investment of $16,355.  One would be better off putting the money into a CD even at today's rates.  Conservative investing would yield more like $1000 a year.

    2.  Without subsidies, roof panels offer no savings at all.

    This is economic fantasy ala Dr. Steven Chu."

    Simultaneously, Anonymous Dave has made the following comments:
    "In the cost of a rooftop system, I see no allowance for maintenance which involves replacing roof shingles and repairing roof leaks. If the solar panel installation can be done so as not to interfere with the replacement of shingles and repair of roof leaks when needed, then no allowance needs to be made. But all installations I have seen just slap a metal frame down on top of the shingles, so the solar panel frame needs to be moved/removed to repair replace the shingles. On the other side, shingles are mainly degraded by sun/wind/rain/sleet/hail/snow. So shingles under the solar panels would deteriorate far more slowly.

    The residential house cost breakdown does not include the cost of money. In the coming years, the opportunity cost of money may be close to zero. Since the turn of the century, the overall stock market has gained less than 2%/year annualized. Real cost-of-living inflation these days is well above 10%. CDs, bonds, and money market are all paying well below that. So Opportunity cost of money may be negative, but in the average residential installation, the money would be borrowed, so let’s use a second-mortgage rate of 5% for our cost of money. With that cost added in, it adds $10,820 interest to the total system cost for a 25-year minimum total cost of $27,175.

    Also, the cost of average repairs should be added in. On some installations, there will be damage due to wind, hail, freezing water, falling tree branches, basketballs and footballs, and weathering and corrosion of improperly installed frames and systems.

    Real-world 25-year total system cost, when factoring in all of my above-mentioned factors, will likely be in the range of $30,000-$35,000. At a real-world 25-year total system cost of $32,000, and monthly electric bill average savings of $77, breakeven would take 455 months (38 years).

    Also, I highly doubt that the true total cost of electricity from coal and nuclear powered plants has been calculated. The unforeseen collateral political costs could make the actual total costs much higher. And what about pollution from the manufacture of solar panels and inverters, and the disposal of those items when they become inoperable. How would those factors affect total real cost?

    At this point, the macroeconomic factors (national security and balance of trade) are the most important, and may make rooftop solar installations viable in ideal locations and at current costs. But within the next 5-10 years, rooftop solar should become de-facto standard for all new residential construction in ideal locations and in 10-15 years for existing housing. Also, during that time, better energy storage systems will be devised.

    As long as our nation is dependent on the import of energy from our potential or real enemies, we are extremely vulnerable militarily. As long as we are paying them vast sums of money every year, we are making them stronger while we make ourselves weaker. Hydrocarbon fuels, when burned, DO produce huge amounts of emissions. Some of those emissions are clearly polluting, and some of those emissions may in the future be discovered to be polluting. Localized solar panel installation has other significant advantages. It reduces the need of transmission lines that are expensive to construct and vulnerable to attack. It creates a more modular, self-sufficient and less vulnerable “grid system” It creates a less centralized power system – a large centralized system can easily be politically manipulated and abused.  There are many highly significant and compelling reasons to keep moving in the localized rooftop solar direction."

    Anonymous Dave then followed with this additional comment:
    "Unexpected events (probably likely within then next 5-20 years) could rapidly and catastrophically change the fully amortized costs of new power plants (coal, gas, nuclear). If a plant is built expecting a fully amortized life of, say, 25 years, and something happens to require the decommissioning of that plant after only 5 years of operation, the unit cost of electricity output of that plant then skyrockets. Appropriate and beneficial incremental adjustments on rooftop solar installations are much easier to achieve.

    I see a few big questions:

        How can we make our nation energy-independent (mainly for national security, but also for balance of trade)? I’d say gradually ban the import of energy, in a way to cause our energy prices to gradually rise to a point where we have equilibrium between various sources of renewable and non-renewable energy. This is a pay me now or pay me later scenario. We are taking short-term gains at the expense of long-term profits. We are driving by looking at the hood ornament.

        How can we stabilize our nation’s energy system for the long run? We are now too short-sighted. When something happens in the near future (5-20 years) to render our current energy systems (coal, gas, nuclear) less viable, the rapid change in amortization costs, plus the inability to quickly change to different systems, will create huge unforeseen costs and significant economic recession or depression.

        I had another question that I can’t remember."

    Since I believe we have now brought in the most relevant points regarding pros and cons of residential solar electricity, I am terminating further discussion, but also having the last comment.
    The initial report from Chemical and Engineering News on the subject was that utilities were increasing their involvement in construction of solar generated electricity production. I suggest that the likely reasons for this are twofold. Utilities believe there is some technological and economic basis for it in the longer term. They also want to take advantage of available government subsidies before they are terminated.

The High Cost of Solar Electricity

Another article in the September 17, 2012 issue of Chemical Engineering News by Melody Bomgardner covers increased production of electricity by photovoltaic (solar) systems in the US.

A report by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association indicates that utilities increased solar energy production by 147 MW from last year's second quarter. Simultaneously, the solar energy residential production market remained flat and the commercial production market shrank 33% from the first quarter. The article also mentions that previous solar energy giants Germany and Italy have seen installations plunge because of lower government incentives.

Separately, Four Peaks Technologies of Scottsdale, Arizona, shows a present electricity production cost from coal at 8.0 cents per kilowatt hour, while solar energy production cost is 15.0 cents per kilowatt hour (http://solarcellcentral.com/cost_page.html).

From another source, the average price for electricity to residential consumers from all sources is 11.6 cents per kilowatt hour. Commercial and industrial prices are lower.

Therefore, we must conclude that the only reason for the utility increase in solar electricity production is because of government subsidies, which obviously cannot continue in the long run. Apparently, Italy and Germany have already found the deadline for their subsidies to be now.

Uneconomic Biofuel Use in the Military

There is an article in the September 17, 2012 issue of Chemical and Engineering News by Andrea Widener concerning fuels in the military.

The article doesn't say how much the military spends each year in fuel, but it must be big. The Air Force spends $9 billion alone for aviation fuel

The basis of the article is to question whether the military should be using or even testing biofuels. A recent naval fleet demonstration sailed on a blend of traditional petroleum fuel and biofuels from algae and cooking oils.

This effort is presumably related to the Department of Defense having a legislative mandate to use 20% renewable fuels by 2025. In this context renewable fuels means biofuels from living sources, such as algae and animals (fat)

The major objection to this program appears to be the fact that biofuels cost considerably more than fuels from petroleum.

In defense of the biofuels program, Sec. of the Navy says we must do this to guarantee energy security and independence. It's not clear what the practical difference is between security and independence.

Additionally, the military claims that volatility in the price of petroleum means the Air Force ends up paying more than it budgets. An obvious rebuttal to that is that the Air Force needs a better budgeting capability. More significantly, this variability could be significantly reduced by increasing drastically the production of petroleum in the United States from which we have significant resources being withheld only by government and pandering to Marxist type environmental groups. If those groups are the cause of the price variations by limiting US petroleum production, it might be reasonable to tax them as political operators rather than charitable organizations. This would at least reduce their funds available to buy positions with the federal government.

A House bill proposes that the military should not be using biodegradable fuels for either major testing or operational use, unless the price is equivalent to that of petroleum-based fuel. There is a similar bill in a Senate committee, which has not passed the full Senate. It Is likely that these bills will go nowhere, based on the attitude of the full Senate and the President, who are continuing to promote expensive biofuels to the detriment of the taxpaying public.