Anonymous CJ has a contribution, which I include verbatim.
Ladies & Gentleman,
There was an earlier commentary on this subject but some new developments have been added recently. Here is a review:
1. Ethanol in gasoline was a sop to corn farmers proposed in the mid-1970s by then Sen. Birch Bayh. It was mandated in a number of states and called "Gasohol".
2. Late in the 1970's a federal program to reduce unburned hydrocarbons from cars was instituted. It used an oxygenated compound called MTBE - methyl t- butyl ether. It had some positive effect. However, some of the compound entered the potable water supply in California and was immediately banned. The ban quickly became national policy. At that point ethanol became the federally mandated additive to gasoline.
3. By the early 1980's, catalytic converters became required equipment on passenger cars. These and, later, fuel injection completely solved the problem of unburned hydrocarbons from cars. Nevertheless, the mandated use of ethanol continued. It was maintained by the Congressional Representatives and Senators from the farm states.
4. During the early 2000's, the rallying cry for ethanol in gasoline became energy independence. Incidentally, tariffs were put in place back in the 1990's to eliminate the importation of ethanol from the sugar producers in South America. Meanwhile, the Congress in their wisdom increased the requirement for ethanol in gasoline.
5. In 2012, a serious drought reduced the output of corn, and the price of corn rose substantially. As you know, the price of corn flows directly into the prices of meat and other food products. Those prices immediately increased.
6. Earlier this year, the Congress and the Administration very quietly let the tariffs on imported ethanol expire. As a result, large quantities of ethanol flowed into this country from Brazil.
7. Beyond that, crude oil and natural gas production in the United States increased sharply with development of sources in shale strata. This country will become a net exporter of hydrocarbons within the decade.
The serious questions now become: What will be the next political justification for the use of ethanol in gasoline? Should there be one?
Do your own analysis.
CJ
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Divergent Opinions on Ethanol as a Motor Fuel
Alex Scott has an article in the November 5
issue of Chemical and Engineering News on ethanol production. It will be
recalled that ethanol is being used as an additive to gasoline under a
Congressional mandate. I have been arguing for some time that Congress should
eliminate this mandate, because there's an ample world supply of petroleum for
gasoline and the supply is becoming more available.The article primarily discusses use of enzymes to hydrolyze cellulose to sugars, which are converted to ethanol by fermentation. The process is being pushed by two European firms, and they predict that within the next 3 to 5 years they will be 15 to 20 new plants using the technology. Each plant will have a capacity of 15,000,000 to 40,000,000 gallons of ethanol per year. Presumably, most of these plans would be in Western Europe, which delights me.
We live in a competitive world and if the Europeans desire to saddle themselves with a high cost energy source, this can only be favorable to the US.
Most people know British Petroleum (BP), which is an international energy company. It is notorious for its Gulf Oil Spill. It had planned to build a $300 million ethanol from cellulose plant in Florida but has now canceled that plan. BP made a huge technical blunder in the Gulf Oil Spill, but it certainly knows the energy business and obviously recognizes the futility of continuing with ethanol.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Biofuels from Algae is Dead Dead Dead!
In the October 29 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Jeff Johnson
comments on a report from the National Research Council (NRC) concerning
biofuels from algae.
The Department of Energy (DOE) had a robust program for nearly 20 years to develop biofuels from algae. Fortunately, that program ended in 1996 when the DOE concluded that algae produced biofuels were unlikely to be competitive with petroleum.
Under those conditions, it seems strange that the NRC is putting out a confirmation report 16 years later.
As speculation, it may be related to the general NRC program of spending taxpayer money, since the report concludes with a statement that more R&D is needed before the promise of sustainable development of algae biofuels has any chance of being realized.
This is a ridiculous statement. Any Research and Development should be done from the initial concept that it could be a winner rather than a loser. I have already repeatedly said that the use of taxpayer money to fund tremendous amounts of R&D at universities with taxpayer funds is a loser at best.
The Department of Energy (DOE) had a robust program for nearly 20 years to develop biofuels from algae. Fortunately, that program ended in 1996 when the DOE concluded that algae produced biofuels were unlikely to be competitive with petroleum.
Under those conditions, it seems strange that the NRC is putting out a confirmation report 16 years later.
As speculation, it may be related to the general NRC program of spending taxpayer money, since the report concludes with a statement that more R&D is needed before the promise of sustainable development of algae biofuels has any chance of being realized.
This is a ridiculous statement. Any Research and Development should be done from the initial concept that it could be a winner rather than a loser. I have already repeatedly said that the use of taxpayer money to fund tremendous amounts of R&D at universities with taxpayer funds is a loser at best.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Congress Must Repeal the Ethanol Mandate
A man lived in the suburbs with his wife and children. They had a rather standard suburban house fitted with electricity, running water, and gas heat. It even had a couple of fireplaces.
Winter was approaching and there was a chill in the air. His wife started to complain that she was cold, but the man would not turn on the gas heat.
As he had done for the last few years, each evening when he came home from work he would drive farther out into the country in his gasoline automobile and cut wood on a wooded lot, which is father had given him. He would then bring the word home and stock it for use in the house fireplaces. However, his wife did not find fireplace heating very satisfactory and she still complained, especially since she had no hot water for her bath.
The friend mentioned that there was a new process for recovery of natural gas, which significantly increased the supply.
The man was an accountant by profession, and since he still was using electricity, he went to his computer and googled the Internet. He learned about fracking and also found out that there was a 200-year supply of natural gas available. Since he was also a student of actuarials, he determined that it would be several generations before general population use would have any effect on natural gas availability. He also concluded that what he did personally with respect to saving natural gas by using firewood, would have no significant effect on the supply.
He turned on the gas valve at home and stopped his wife's griping.
Another man also lived in the United States. This man raised cattle for beef in the general food market.
Some years earlier, the Congress, in its infinite wisdom, had decided that the natural sources of petroleum in the US were limited and should be conserved. Congress also said that since the country was running somewhat short of money, we should cut down on our oil imports from foreign sources. To accomplish this objective, Congress passed a law forcing all gasoline manufacturers to add ethyl alcohol to gasoline for public use. This presumably would stretch out the supply of natural gasoline from petroleum.
The ethyl alcohol was the same material that is normally considered drinking alcohol. It is produced by fermentation of sugars contained in plant materials, such as grapes and corn. To force the program, Congress granted several billion dollars to various ethyl alcohol producers from corn kernels and many more billions of dollars to produce ethyl alcohol from corn cobs and husks. The first technology went very well, in that the ethyl alcohol producers from corn kernels put out a tremendous amount of ethyl alcohol. Unfortunately, the second technology was not developed well enough, so that there was no alcohol produced from corn husks and corn cobs. The second inability also forced a considerably increased amount of ethanol made from corn kernels.
Along came a drought. Production of corn kernels dropped almost 20%
As the drought continued, with a scarcity of corn for cattle feed, the cattleman started to send more of his younger cattle to market. This temporarily made more tender beef available to the consumer at low prices. Later, the cattleman started to send breed cattle to slaughter. Since they were generally somewhat older, this put tough beef on the consumer market, and since it was a limited amount, prices increased. After a year or two, the cattleman was out of business and the remaining cattlemen were having a hard time staying in business.
Meanwhile, the new fracking process also brought a considerable increase of crude oil for gasoline to the theoretical market. Theoretical, because environmental groups, in consort with the Environmental Protection Agency were making it difficult for petroleum producers to actually make more petroleum available for use as gasoline.
As Congress sat and did nothing, the corn shortage was bad for the nation's food supply and the ethyl alcohol produced from it and added to gasoline became an unnecessary expense.
Winter was approaching and there was a chill in the air. His wife started to complain that she was cold, but the man would not turn on the gas heat.
As he had done for the last few years, each evening when he came home from work he would drive farther out into the country in his gasoline automobile and cut wood on a wooded lot, which is father had given him. He would then bring the word home and stock it for use in the house fireplaces. However, his wife did not find fireplace heating very satisfactory and she still complained, especially since she had no hot water for her bath.
The friend mentioned that there was a new process for recovery of natural gas, which significantly increased the supply.
The man was an accountant by profession, and since he still was using electricity, he went to his computer and googled the Internet. He learned about fracking and also found out that there was a 200-year supply of natural gas available. Since he was also a student of actuarials, he determined that it would be several generations before general population use would have any effect on natural gas availability. He also concluded that what he did personally with respect to saving natural gas by using firewood, would have no significant effect on the supply.
He turned on the gas valve at home and stopped his wife's griping.
Another man also lived in the United States. This man raised cattle for beef in the general food market.
Some years earlier, the Congress, in its infinite wisdom, had decided that the natural sources of petroleum in the US were limited and should be conserved. Congress also said that since the country was running somewhat short of money, we should cut down on our oil imports from foreign sources. To accomplish this objective, Congress passed a law forcing all gasoline manufacturers to add ethyl alcohol to gasoline for public use. This presumably would stretch out the supply of natural gasoline from petroleum.
The ethyl alcohol was the same material that is normally considered drinking alcohol. It is produced by fermentation of sugars contained in plant materials, such as grapes and corn. To force the program, Congress granted several billion dollars to various ethyl alcohol producers from corn kernels and many more billions of dollars to produce ethyl alcohol from corn cobs and husks. The first technology went very well, in that the ethyl alcohol producers from corn kernels put out a tremendous amount of ethyl alcohol. Unfortunately, the second technology was not developed well enough, so that there was no alcohol produced from corn husks and corn cobs. The second inability also forced a considerably increased amount of ethanol made from corn kernels.
Along came a drought. Production of corn kernels dropped almost 20%
As the drought continued, with a scarcity of corn for cattle feed, the cattleman started to send more of his younger cattle to market. This temporarily made more tender beef available to the consumer at low prices. Later, the cattleman started to send breed cattle to slaughter. Since they were generally somewhat older, this put tough beef on the consumer market, and since it was a limited amount, prices increased. After a year or two, the cattleman was out of business and the remaining cattlemen were having a hard time staying in business.
Meanwhile, the new fracking process also brought a considerable increase of crude oil for gasoline to the theoretical market. Theoretical, because environmental groups, in consort with the Environmental Protection Agency were making it difficult for petroleum producers to actually make more petroleum available for use as gasoline.
As Congress sat and did nothing, the corn shortage was bad for the nation's food supply and the ethyl alcohol produced from it and added to gasoline became an unnecessary expense.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
More Loss to American Taxpayers through Bankruptcy of Battery Makers
This is a continuing saga of one bankruptcy event after another involving loss of tremendous sums by the American taxpayer through government grants to support a non-workable system.
The latest report by Marc Reisch in the October 22 issue of Chemical and Engineering News says that A123 Systems, a lithium-ion battery maker, has gone bust. Its remaining assets were sold to Johnson Controls, another lithium-ion battery maker. We will see how long Johnson Controls can last.
A123 Systems received $249 million of federal taxpayer funds from the Department of Energy and $125 billion of Michigan taxpayers funds from that state.
A123 Systems has flirted with bankruptcy for the past year as the large market it had envisioned for electronic vehicles never materialized. No matter how much the federal government may be in love with electronic vehicles, they are not well accepted by the American public to the extent that the normal automobile buyer will lay out his cash.
The latest report by Marc Reisch in the October 22 issue of Chemical and Engineering News says that A123 Systems, a lithium-ion battery maker, has gone bust. Its remaining assets were sold to Johnson Controls, another lithium-ion battery maker. We will see how long Johnson Controls can last.
A123 Systems received $249 million of federal taxpayer funds from the Department of Energy and $125 billion of Michigan taxpayers funds from that state.
A123 Systems has flirted with bankruptcy for the past year as the large market it had envisioned for electronic vehicles never materialized. No matter how much the federal government may be in love with electronic vehicles, they are not well accepted by the American public to the extent that the normal automobile buyer will lay out his cash.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, October 8, 2012
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
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
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 1, 2012
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.
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.
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.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Kudos to Romney for Plan Boosting Fossil Fuel Production
Glenn Hess reports in the September 3 issue of Chemical and Engineering News that Romney plans to focus on fossil fuels, with increased production of oil, gas, and coal. Hess points out that the plan does not mention climate change. Later in the article, Hess indicates that environmental activists also do not mention not consider the Romney plan realistic because of potential climate disruption.
Kudos to Romney for not mentioning climate change, because his plan has no effect on climate change. The implication of Hess and the environmentalists is that with the increased use of fossil fuels, there will be higher emissions of carbon dioxide which is said to have a deleterious effect on climate. This is absolutely false, because there is no data to show that increased carbon dioxide emissions have any effect on climate. Since it is a red herring, Romney's plan does not mention it.
Kudos to Romney for not mentioning climate change, because his plan has no effect on climate change. The implication of Hess and the environmentalists is that with the increased use of fossil fuels, there will be higher emissions of carbon dioxide which is said to have a deleterious effect on climate. This is absolutely false, because there is no data to show that increased carbon dioxide emissions have any effect on climate. Since it is a red herring, Romney's plan does not mention it.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Ethanol Added to Gasoline
Anonymous CJ gives us a little background
on the use of ethanol as a partial replacement for gasoline.
"Ethanol in motor fuel has a history going back to the 1970s. At that time, Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana conceived the idea of converting corn to ethanol and blending it into motor fuel. In those days it was called "gasohol" and the primary purpose was to provide farmers with a way to use otherwise uncultivated corn acreage to their economic advantage.
Back in the 1960s and earlier, smog was a serious air pollution problem in major cities, particularly Los Angeles. Two developments emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s that essentially eliminated smog. The first was the use of catalytic converters which burned the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons in car engine exhaust to carbon dioxide and water. The second was the use of an oxygenated compound in motor fuel to improve the combustion of the fuel in the cylinders. The first oxygenated compound of choice was MTBE. As it turned out, there was leakage of gasoline from some underground storage tanks, and the MTBE found this way into potable water supplies. The principal health problem turned out to be taste and some other minor effects. However, the State of California banned the use of MTBE in motor fuels. That ban was later extended to the entire country.
In the 1980s and 1990s fuel injection became standard on automobile engines. The combination of catalytic converters and fuel injection totally eliminated unburned carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from automotive exhaust. Smog was eliminated in most major cities in a relatively short time. However, by that time the Congress in its wisdom had decided that ethanol should be used as a component of all motor fuels. The fact that smog had been eliminated was set aside, and the Congress decided that ethanol would be a way for the United States to reduce its import of crude oil from other countries. That is a fantasy. As a result, the country is now facing the current ecological and economic disaster generated by the mandated conversion of corn to ethanol for use in motor fuel.
I trust this bit of history has been instructive."
"Ethanol in motor fuel has a history going back to the 1970s. At that time, Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana conceived the idea of converting corn to ethanol and blending it into motor fuel. In those days it was called "gasohol" and the primary purpose was to provide farmers with a way to use otherwise uncultivated corn acreage to their economic advantage.
Back in the 1960s and earlier, smog was a serious air pollution problem in major cities, particularly Los Angeles. Two developments emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s that essentially eliminated smog. The first was the use of catalytic converters which burned the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons in car engine exhaust to carbon dioxide and water. The second was the use of an oxygenated compound in motor fuel to improve the combustion of the fuel in the cylinders. The first oxygenated compound of choice was MTBE. As it turned out, there was leakage of gasoline from some underground storage tanks, and the MTBE found this way into potable water supplies. The principal health problem turned out to be taste and some other minor effects. However, the State of California banned the use of MTBE in motor fuels. That ban was later extended to the entire country.
In the 1980s and 1990s fuel injection became standard on automobile engines. The combination of catalytic converters and fuel injection totally eliminated unburned carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons from automotive exhaust. Smog was eliminated in most major cities in a relatively short time. However, by that time the Congress in its wisdom had decided that ethanol should be used as a component of all motor fuels. The fact that smog had been eliminated was set aside, and the Congress decided that ethanol would be a way for the United States to reduce its import of crude oil from other countries. That is a fantasy. As a result, the country is now facing the current ecological and economic disaster generated by the mandated conversion of corn to ethanol for use in motor fuel.
I trust this bit of history has been instructive."
Friday, August 17, 2012
High Gasoline Prices
Patrick DeHaan, senior
petroleum analyst at GasBuddy, an online site for gasoline consumers, has named
several reasons why gasoline prices are now high. I will address each of these
with my suggestions for correction.
Recent Refinery Fires - He mentions Chevron in California and another in the Great Lakes area. These were accidents which seem to be attributed to worn or outmoded facilities, rather than negligence in operation. New refineries have not been built for many years and the old equipment is in later stages of decay.
The solution is to modernize present refineries, with replacement of equipment as necessary and also to build new refineries. The difficulty is that the profit margin in refining is so low as to make such investment unviable. That means addressing each of the negative portions, contributing to such unprofitability.
Not in My Backyard - Residents generally do not want a refinery geographically close to them, because of obnoxious odors, risk of explosive danger, and destruction of the residential ambiance.
Refineries are an operation that pay local taxes. Tax receipts from a refinery could be used to lower taxes of residential properties in the immediate vicinity. This would likely help convince residents to accept a local refinery.
General Business Regulations - These involve numerous mandates from the federal and sometimes from the state or local governments. Examples are wage and hour laws for labor, environmental restrictions imposed by the EPA, and OSHA standards for safety.
While some of the above regulations are generally of value, most business people and some private individuals agree it has been overdone. Business restrictions should generally be reviewed and eliminated wherever reasonable.
High Crude Oil Prices - This comes about primarily because of crude oil import.
Reduce the necessity of crude oil imports by eliminating the federal government's fostering development of renewable energy by restricting local production of oil and gas. Tapping oil resources in Alaska and the continental shelf of the US would make us less dependent on expensive crude imports. Ancillary to that is working with Canada on pipeline importations.
Ethanol - Congress has mandated that every gallon of gasoline must contain 10% ethanol. This mostly has a hidden tax, because of federal subsidies in the production of ethanol from corn. Therefore, it is not usually a direct increased cost of gasoline from a refinery. However, the recent drought has increased corn prices significantly, which in turn increases the price of ethanol and the price to the refinery.
Congress should eliminate this ridiculous ethanol mandate.
Recent Refinery Fires - He mentions Chevron in California and another in the Great Lakes area. These were accidents which seem to be attributed to worn or outmoded facilities, rather than negligence in operation. New refineries have not been built for many years and the old equipment is in later stages of decay.
The solution is to modernize present refineries, with replacement of equipment as necessary and also to build new refineries. The difficulty is that the profit margin in refining is so low as to make such investment unviable. That means addressing each of the negative portions, contributing to such unprofitability.
Not in My Backyard - Residents generally do not want a refinery geographically close to them, because of obnoxious odors, risk of explosive danger, and destruction of the residential ambiance.
Refineries are an operation that pay local taxes. Tax receipts from a refinery could be used to lower taxes of residential properties in the immediate vicinity. This would likely help convince residents to accept a local refinery.
General Business Regulations - These involve numerous mandates from the federal and sometimes from the state or local governments. Examples are wage and hour laws for labor, environmental restrictions imposed by the EPA, and OSHA standards for safety.
While some of the above regulations are generally of value, most business people and some private individuals agree it has been overdone. Business restrictions should generally be reviewed and eliminated wherever reasonable.
High Crude Oil Prices - This comes about primarily because of crude oil import.
Reduce the necessity of crude oil imports by eliminating the federal government's fostering development of renewable energy by restricting local production of oil and gas. Tapping oil resources in Alaska and the continental shelf of the US would make us less dependent on expensive crude imports. Ancillary to that is working with Canada on pipeline importations.
Ethanol - Congress has mandated that every gallon of gasoline must contain 10% ethanol. This mostly has a hidden tax, because of federal subsidies in the production of ethanol from corn. Therefore, it is not usually a direct increased cost of gasoline from a refinery. However, the recent drought has increased corn prices significantly, which in turn increases the price of ethanol and the price to the refinery.
Congress should eliminate this ridiculous ethanol mandate.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Sadoway's New Battery
An associate pointed out to me the existence of a YouTube presentation by
David Sadoway, in which he describes the invention of a new-type battery.
I replied as follows: James,
There are several ways to store electricity, in order to have a continuous supply when the initial generation is intermittent, such as only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.
All of these are storage devices or procedures by which the electricity can be recalled when needed.
The first is rechargeable batteries. It operates on the same basis as putting food in your refrigerator and periodically using it. When the supply runs down you restock the refrigerator.
Another is to use the electricity to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. You store the gases and when you need electricity, you reburn them in a fuel cell.
Another is to use the electricity to pump water to a higher elevation. When electricity is needed, the water is allowed to flow down through turbines to regenerate electricity. The second portion is well known as hydroelectric power from traditional reservoirs. However, the whole process is used in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where water is pumped to a reservoir on a mountaintop.
Another process is to use electricity to turn a huge flywheel. The moving flywheel can then generate electricity back. This is rather abstract and probably not very practical.
A lot of work is being done on rechargeable batteries, in view of the Obama Administration's interest in electric cars. There have been some good advances, and Sadoway's battery may be a significant achievement. Batteries have the advantage over the other processes in that they are considerably more portable. However, they may not be the most efficient for stationary power supplies, such as household electricity service. We will have to see how the technology develops with respect to economics. We must also remember that the standard process of generating a continuing supply of electricity from burning coal or natural gas in public utilities is presently more economical, as compared to solar and wind, which we have already pointed out has the disadvantage of unreliability.
I replied as follows: James,
There are several ways to store electricity, in order to have a continuous supply when the initial generation is intermittent, such as only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing.
All of these are storage devices or procedures by which the electricity can be recalled when needed.
The first is rechargeable batteries. It operates on the same basis as putting food in your refrigerator and periodically using it. When the supply runs down you restock the refrigerator.
Another is to use the electricity to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen. You store the gases and when you need electricity, you reburn them in a fuel cell.
Another is to use the electricity to pump water to a higher elevation. When electricity is needed, the water is allowed to flow down through turbines to regenerate electricity. The second portion is well known as hydroelectric power from traditional reservoirs. However, the whole process is used in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where water is pumped to a reservoir on a mountaintop.
Another process is to use electricity to turn a huge flywheel. The moving flywheel can then generate electricity back. This is rather abstract and probably not very practical.
A lot of work is being done on rechargeable batteries, in view of the Obama Administration's interest in electric cars. There have been some good advances, and Sadoway's battery may be a significant achievement. Batteries have the advantage over the other processes in that they are considerably more portable. However, they may not be the most efficient for stationary power supplies, such as household electricity service. We will have to see how the technology develops with respect to economics. We must also remember that the standard process of generating a continuing supply of electricity from burning coal or natural gas in public utilities is presently more economical, as compared to solar and wind, which we have already pointed out has the disadvantage of unreliability.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Good News for the Death of Carbon Sequestration Jeff Johnson has a nice article in the July 16 issue of Chemical & Engineering News entitled, "Stumbling on the Path to Clean Coal". The subtitle is, "Carbon Capture and Sequestration appears stuck, dashing hopes of cutting CO2 while burning coal". The dictionary has only two definitions for "sequestration". The legal definition is the seizure of property. The chemical definition is the limitation or prevention of normal ion behavior by combination with added materials. However, a new definition has developed, which is the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Note that these definitions are different from the "sequestration" denoting mandatory cuts in government expenditures on January 1. We should also look at recent use of the term "clean coal". Previously, clean coal had a meaning of form of relatively pure carbon. That is, it had little or no contamination from sulfur or mercury. When the term is now applied to coal, meaning no carbon dioxide emission on burning, it is obviously an unrealistic interpretation of the English language. There is no carbon dioxide in coal, and therefore coal cannot be significantly contaminated by carbon dioxide. In spite of these difficulties with language, the total article gives good news. While the House of Representatives cleared legislation to require carbon dioxide reductions to the atmosphere and a Cap & Trade program in 2009, a price on carbon dioxide emissions expired the next year. Jeff says that today Congress members have no intention of putting a price on carbon emissions and many even challenge the scientific basis of climate change. That is wonderful news, because there is absolutely no basis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere cause any damage to the environment, and any attempts at major control would be horrendous. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy does not give up easily, even when it's wrong. It has provided $6.9 billion for R&D funding on carbon sequestration since 2005, and half of that has come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was President Obama's stimulus package. A subsequent report by the Congressional Budget Office also states that carbon dioxide each sequestration would increase electricity costs from coal-fired power plants by 75%, because of the cost of new equipment for CO2 capture. Organizations, such as the Congressional Research Service and the World Watch Institute "find a" great need for carbon sequestration. There is no indication as to why this would be necessary, and we can only assume that this would be the usual complaints of Marxist type environmental organizations. Jeff goes on to say that the use of natural gas and electricity production has increased, with a consequential reduction in the use of coal. However, coal gives one third of the US total CO2 emissions and 80% of the CO2 emissions from electricity production. So what? There is no evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is detrimental to the environment. Robert Hilton is a vice president of Alstom, a global construction and engineering firm supplying equipment for carbon dioxide capture. He bemoans the trend in Congress toward realization that carbon dioxide capture from coal burning plants is not necessary. Naturally so, it is his business to supply such equipment. However, it is clear that Alstom was not willing to put its money where its mouth is. It rejected an offer to put up only half of a $668 million project to sequester carbon dioxide in a West Virginia electric power plant, with the Department of Energy putting up the other half in taxpayer money. However, a negative shadow on the situation is that the EPA has proposed a new rule to limit CO2 emissions from new power plants to 1000 pounds per megawatt hour. Since the present technology for new, coal-fired power plants would have emissions of 1650 to 1750 pounds of CO2 per MWh without carbon sequestration, it appears that no new coal-fired power plants will be built, unless Congress takes further action to control the EPA's abuse of power.
Jeff Johnson has a nice article in the
July 16 issue of Chemical & Engineering News entitled, "Stumbling on the
Path to Clean Coal". The subtitle is, "Carbon Capture and Sequestration appears
stuck, dashing hopes of cutting CO2 while burning coal".
The dictionary has only two definitions for "sequestration". The legal definition is the seizure of property. The chemical definition is the limitation or prevention of normal ion behavior by combination with added materials. However, a new definition has developed, which is the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Note that these definitions are different from the "sequestration" denoting mandatory cuts in government expenditures on January 1.
We should also look at recent use of the term "clean coal". Previously, clean coal had a meaning of form of relatively pure carbon. That is, it had little or no contamination from sulfur or mercury. When the term is now applied to coal, meaning no carbon dioxide emission on burning, it is obviously an unrealistic interpretation of the English language. There is no carbon dioxide in coal, and therefore coal cannot be significantly contaminated by carbon dioxide.
In spite of these difficulties with language, the total article gives good news. While the House of Representatives cleared legislation to require carbon dioxide reductions to the atmosphere and a Cap & Trade program in 2009, a price on carbon dioxide emissions expired the next year. Jeff says that today Congress members have no intention of putting a price on carbon emissions and many even challenge the scientific basis of climate change. That is wonderful news, because there is absolutely no basis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere cause any damage to the environment, and any attempts at major control would be horrendous.
Unfortunately, the Department of Energy does not give up easily, even when it's wrong. It has provided $6.9 billion for R&D funding on carbon sequestration since 2005, and half of that has come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was President Obama's stimulus package.
A subsequent report by the Congressional Budget Office also states that carbon dioxide each sequestration would increase electricity costs from coal-fired power plants by 75%, because of the cost of new equipment for CO2 capture.
Organizations, such as the Congressional Research Service and the World Watch Institute "find a" great need for carbon sequestration. There is no indication as to why this would be necessary, and we can only assume that this would be the usual complaints of Marxist type environmental organizations.
Jeff goes on to say that the use of natural gas and electricity production has increased, with a consequential reduction in the use of coal. However, coal gives one third of the US total CO2 emissions and 80% of the CO2 emissions from electricity production. So what? There is no evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is detrimental to the environment.
Robert Hilton is a vice president of Alstom, a global construction and engineering firm supplying equipment for carbon dioxide capture. He bemoans the trend in Congress toward realization that carbon dioxide capture from coal burning plants is not necessary. Naturally so, it is his business to supply such equipment. However, it is clear that Alstom was not willing to put its money where its mouth is. It rejected an offer to put up only half of a $668 million project to sequester carbon dioxide in a West Virginia electric power plant, with the Department of Energy putting up the other half in taxpayer money.
However, a negative shadow on the situation is that the EPA has proposed a new rule to limit CO2 emissions from new power plants to 1000 pounds per megawatt hour. Since the present technology for new, coal-fired power plants would have emissions of 1650 to 1750 pounds of CO2 per MWh without carbon sequestration, it appears that no new coal-fired power plants will be built, unless Congress takes further action to control the EPA's abuse of power.
The dictionary has only two definitions for "sequestration". The legal definition is the seizure of property. The chemical definition is the limitation or prevention of normal ion behavior by combination with added materials. However, a new definition has developed, which is the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Note that these definitions are different from the "sequestration" denoting mandatory cuts in government expenditures on January 1.
We should also look at recent use of the term "clean coal". Previously, clean coal had a meaning of form of relatively pure carbon. That is, it had little or no contamination from sulfur or mercury. When the term is now applied to coal, meaning no carbon dioxide emission on burning, it is obviously an unrealistic interpretation of the English language. There is no carbon dioxide in coal, and therefore coal cannot be significantly contaminated by carbon dioxide.
In spite of these difficulties with language, the total article gives good news. While the House of Representatives cleared legislation to require carbon dioxide reductions to the atmosphere and a Cap & Trade program in 2009, a price on carbon dioxide emissions expired the next year. Jeff says that today Congress members have no intention of putting a price on carbon emissions and many even challenge the scientific basis of climate change. That is wonderful news, because there is absolutely no basis that carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere cause any damage to the environment, and any attempts at major control would be horrendous.
Unfortunately, the Department of Energy does not give up easily, even when it's wrong. It has provided $6.9 billion for R&D funding on carbon sequestration since 2005, and half of that has come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was President Obama's stimulus package.
A subsequent report by the Congressional Budget Office also states that carbon dioxide each sequestration would increase electricity costs from coal-fired power plants by 75%, because of the cost of new equipment for CO2 capture.
Organizations, such as the Congressional Research Service and the World Watch Institute "find a" great need for carbon sequestration. There is no indication as to why this would be necessary, and we can only assume that this would be the usual complaints of Marxist type environmental organizations.
Jeff goes on to say that the use of natural gas and electricity production has increased, with a consequential reduction in the use of coal. However, coal gives one third of the US total CO2 emissions and 80% of the CO2 emissions from electricity production. So what? There is no evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is detrimental to the environment.
Robert Hilton is a vice president of Alstom, a global construction and engineering firm supplying equipment for carbon dioxide capture. He bemoans the trend in Congress toward realization that carbon dioxide capture from coal burning plants is not necessary. Naturally so, it is his business to supply such equipment. However, it is clear that Alstom was not willing to put its money where its mouth is. It rejected an offer to put up only half of a $668 million project to sequester carbon dioxide in a West Virginia electric power plant, with the Department of Energy putting up the other half in taxpayer money.
However, a negative shadow on the situation is that the EPA has proposed a new rule to limit CO2 emissions from new power plants to 1000 pounds per megawatt hour. Since the present technology for new, coal-fired power plants would have emissions of 1650 to 1750 pounds of CO2 per MWh without carbon sequestration, it appears that no new coal-fired power plants will be built, unless Congress takes further action to control the EPA's abuse of power.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Rich Canadians
We heard on the news today that the
average Canadian is richer than the average American.
This comes about for one simple reason. The Per Capita Energy Production in Canada is more than twice that of the US ($7688 versus 3143). This leads to a Gross National Product Per Capita of $$50,436 for Canadians and $48,387 for Americans. Repeat that for a few years, and you have richer Canadians.
This comes about for one simple reason. The Per Capita Energy Production in Canada is more than twice that of the US ($7688 versus 3143). This leads to a Gross National Product Per Capita of $$50,436 for Canadians and $48,387 for Americans. Repeat that for a few years, and you have richer Canadians.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Full Study: Standard of Living Versus Energy
STANDARD
OF LIVING IN RELATION TO ENERGY
SUMMARY
1.
A study of 133 countries shows that a high standard of living is consistent
with high energy usage. It makes no difference whether the energy is wasted or
used efficiently. Presumably, the normal logic of avoiding waste is
automatically effective.
2. High energy producing countries, which have a surplus for export, are also among the highest in standard of living.
3. Another factor for increasing standard of living is a high concentration of foreign bank accounts. However, the effect is limited by population, so that only small countries such as Luxembourg are appreciably affected.
4. The study also implies that industrialization, with the export of manufactured goods, also develops a high standard of living.
2. High energy producing countries, which have a surplus for export, are also among the highest in standard of living.
3. Another factor for increasing standard of living is a high concentration of foreign bank accounts. However, the effect is limited by population, so that only small countries such as Luxembourg are appreciably affected.
4. The study also implies that industrialization, with the export of manufactured goods, also develops a high standard of living.
INTRODUCTION
It
was previously suspected that a high standard of living would require a high
usage of energy, or conversely, high energy usage would give a high standard of
living.
Gross Domestic Product is the value
of goods and services produced within a country. Gross National Product is GDP
plus net income received by residents from non-resident sources.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Data
was collected on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and Energy
Consumption per capita for 133 countries. The countries were divided into three
segments; Top GDP, Middle GDP, and Low GDP. For each segment, the average was
determined, as well as the spread. The data are presented in the following
table:
GDP VERSUS ENERGY CONSUMPTION
GDP Countries
|
Average GDP per
Capita (in US $) (1)
|
GDP Per Capita Range
(in US $)
|
Average Energy
Consumption Per Capita (in US $) (2)
|
Energy Consumption
Per Capita Range (in US $)
|
Top 10
|
73026
|
113500 to 50400
|
4301
|
7600 to 2200
|
Middle 10
|
6768
|
8500 to 5800
|
948
|
1700 to 300
|
Lowest 10
|
687
|
1230 to 220
|
37
|
67 to 6
|
References
& Notes:
(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
(2) Calculated from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_and_production;
Energy Consumption $/Capita =
Trillions of BTUs consumed / population / 5.8 million BTUs per barrel x
$80 per barrel
|
It
is apparent that average GDP's and Energy Consumptions for the three segments
confirm the supposition.
ENERGY PRODUCTION
10 HIGH GDP COUNTRIES AND ENERGY
PRODUCTION
|
||||
Gross Domestic
Product per Capita (GDP in US $) (1)
|
Total Energy
Production (in Trillions of BTUs) (2)
|
Population in
Thousands (3)
|
Energy
Production per Capita (in US $) (4)
|
|
Luxembourg
|
113533
|
3
|
512
|
81
|
97255
|
9941
|
5021
|
27309
|
|
93700
|
4476
|
1699
|
36338
|
|
81161
|
640
|
7952
|
1110
|
|
67008
|
7915
|
8264
|
13211
|
|
59928
|
1114
|
5585
|
2751
|
|
59928
|
11881
|
22660
|
7232
|
|
56956
|
1403
|
9495
|
2038
|
|
50436
|
19422
|
34846
|
7688
|
|
Netherlands
|
50355
|
2657
|
16736
|
2190
|
Since GDP is
related to Energy Consumption, Energy Production might also be a factor. For
that, individual country data for the top 10 GDP countries seems appropriate.
References & Notes:
|
(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
|
(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_and_production
|
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
|
(4) Energy Production $/Capita = Trillions of BTUs produced /
population / 5.8 million BTUs per barrel x $80 per barrel
|
In
comparing Columns 2 and 5 (GDP per Capita and Energy Production per Capita,
there is apparently little correlation. However, closer inspection shows that
Norway, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates have significantly higher Energy
Production than the other countries. It might then be appropriate to draw a
comparison of these countries on the basis of Energy Surplus, which is the
difference between Energy Production and Energy Usage.
ENERGY SURPLUS
10
HIGH GDP COUNTRIES AND ENERGY SURPLUS
Gross Domestic Product per Capita (GDP in US $) (1)
|
Population in Thousands (2)
|
Energy Production per Capita (in US $) (3)
|
Energy Consumption per Capita (in US $) (4)
|
Energy Surplus per Capita (in US$) (5)
|
|
93700
|
1699
|
36338
|
7574
|
28763
|
|
97255
|
5021
|
27309
|
5269
|
22040
|
|
67008
|
8264
|
13211
|
4700
|
8511
|
|
59928
|
22660
|
7232
|
3728
|
3504
|
|
50436
|
34846
|
7688
|
5444
|
2244
|
|
59928
|
5585
|
2751
|
2161
|
590
|
|
81161
|
7952
|
1110
|
2173
|
-1063
|
|
50355
|
16736
|
2190
|
3356
|
-1166
|
|
56956
|
9495
|
2038
|
3271
|
-1233
|
|
Luxembourg
|
113533
|
512
|
81
|
5334
|
-5253
|
Reference:s & Notes
|
(1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
|
(2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
|
(3) Energy Production $/Capita = Trillions of BTUs
produced / population / 5.8 million BTUs per barrel x $80 per barrel
|
(4) Energy Consumption $/Capita = Trillions of BTUs
consumed / population / 5.8 million BTUs per barrel x $80 per barrel
|
(5) Energy Surplus per Capita = Energy Production
per Capita - Energy Consumption per Capita
|
Sorting on the basis of Surplus
Energy, clearly shows that Qatar, Norway, and United Arab Emirates have the
highest Surplus Energy and also have high GDP. Luxembourg and Switzerland are
out of line with Deficit Energy and still have high GDP. However, we can
dispense with the three highest Surplus Energy countries, on the basis that
they or their high GDP to energy exports.
FOREIGN DEPOSITS
Another
obvious source of income for various countries is foreign bank accounts from
individuals and corporations desiring to shelter their assets or defer income
tax payments on profits generated from foreign operations. The advantages to
countries receiving such deposits are fees and taxes.
Matador
Network has a list of the 10 best countries for such foreign banking. Andorra,
Barbados, Belize, and the Cayman Islands are among the 10, but are not included
in our study of 133 countries. Therefore, we will dispense with those four. The
remaining six countries are included for analysis.
BEST COUNTRIES FOR
FOREIGN BANKING
http://matadornetwork.com/life/ten-best-countries-to-set-up-an-offshore-account/
GDP per Capita
(in US $)
|
Population In
Thousands
|
Notes
|
|
Luxembourg
|
113533
|
512
|
Internet banking
|
Switzerland
|
81161
|
7952
|
EU pressure and high minimums
|
Denmark
|
59928
|
5585
|
Difficult but possible
|
Malta
|
21028
|
418
|
Excellent international service
|
Mexico
|
10153
|
112337
|
Many Mexican nationals in US
|
Panama
|
8514
|
3406
|
Canal
|
No data could be found on foreign
banking deposits, but some suppositions can be made. Assume that each country
increases its GDP by $1 billion from foreign deposits.
FICTITIOUS GDP WITH ADDED DEPOSITS
6 BEST COUNTRIES
WITH ADDED DEPOSITS
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/da.html
Gross Domestic
Product per Capita (GDP in US $) (1)
|
Population In
Thousands
|
Total GDP per
Country (in Billions US $)
|
Total GDP with
Added one Billion US $
|
Fictitious GDP
per Capita with Added 1 Billion US $
|
Fictitious GDP
(per Capita per Capita x 1000)
|
Foreign Account Notes
|
|
Luxembourg
|
113533
|
512
|
58.1
|
59.1
|
115430
|
225.4
|
Easy with Internet banking
|
Malta
|
21028
|
418
|
8.8
|
9.8
|
23445
|
56.1
|
Excellent international service
|
Denmark
|
59928
|
5585
|
334.7
|
335.7
|
60107
|
10.8
|
Difficult to establish foreign account
|
Switzerland
|
81161
|
7952
|
645.4
|
646.4
|
81288
|
10.2
|
Has EU pressure to conform and high min. deposits
|
Panama
|
8514
|
3406
|
29.0
|
30.0
|
8808
|
2.6
|
Has separate Canal revenue
|
Mexico
|
10153
|
112337
|
1140.6
|
1141.6
|
10162
|
0.1
|
Many Mexican nationals in US desiring foreign account
|
For this analysis, the strong effect
of country population was also considered by establishing another fictitious
term; Fictitious GDP per Capita per Capita. This is the sixth column of the
above table and is sorted in decreasing value. Comparing
the relative positions of Real Country GDP's with fictitious GDP's (Column 2
versus Column 6), Luxembourg clearly holds a first-place position.
Panama is out of sync, and this may be related to the fact
that it has significant revenues from the Canal operation.
The Fictitious GNP of Mexico remains low, probably because
of its high population.
Malta seems to be an anormally.
The Fictitious GDP's of Denmark and Switzerland did not
change significantly with the addition of the $1 billion, because they have
relatively high populations of this group. They also likely make it into this
group of 10 Highest GDP's, because they are industrialized with significant
exports.
CONCLUSIONS
1. A standard of living in a country
(GDP per Capita) is consistent with high energy consumption per capita. It
follows that any energy increase per capita, leads to a higher standard of
living.
2. Since the study was on Standard
of Living versus Total Energy Consumption, no consideration was given to the
various forms of basic energy (coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, bio, etc.) nor to
their relative costs. Energy Consumption also included wasted energy, as well
as energy which was used efficiently.
3. High Surplus Energy countries are
also consistent with high GDP, presumably from export.
4. Foreign banking can also have a considerable effect on
GDP, but large effects are limited to countries with small populations.
5. Although not included in the
study, industrialization with finished product exports implies a high standard
of living.