The Oil Drum: Canada

The feasibility of non-combustion gas turbines in nuclear reactors

In a discussion about nuclear reactors, a discussion subthread about gas turbines as energy converters ended with this late-arriving statement:

Non-combustion gas turbines are not proven. They're mostly in pilot/research stages. You say that the conditions in non-combustion lower temp operation are more reasonable than in higher temp combustion gas turbines, but the fact that they are not commercially competing with Rankine steam cycles, even in the higher temperature regimes, should caution us not to trivialize the engineering/commercial issues.

The one-week period for comment on the post ended before I could write a response.

What's missing from this analysis?  Let me lay out the pieces:

This is a guest post by Sterling Smith (TOD user Sterling). This first installment of the series outlines the evolution of the energy panorama from now to 2050. A second installment will deal with technical and political aspects of the path put forward.

Sterling is a software architect who works in Silicon Valley and lives in Woodside, California. He was born in the suburbs of New York City and graduated from Dartmouth College, where he majored in physics. He has worked in the software business for 35 years, still writes code, and has been part of eleven start-ups as well as several major corporations. Sterling's wife, Deborah Metzger, PhD, MD, is a very prominent gynecologist with whom he is raising four kids.

Every few years the UK Department of Trade and Industry, now Department of Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, publish a chart of the nation's energy flows. Here's the most recently published chart based on 2007 data:

Click for .pdf

It's a nice, high level overview of energy in the UK illustrating the flow of primary fuels from the point at which they become available from home production or imports (on the left) to their eventual final uses (on the right). Flows at the bottom represent exports, conversion losses and energy industry and non-energy use. The yellow blocks represent transformation (power stations and refineries).

M. King Hubbert made his views about peak oil known in 1956, at a meeting of the American Petroleum Institute. Many people don't know that only a year later, in 1957, Admiral Hyman Rickover started trying to publicize the fact that fossil fuels are finite, and were likely to peak in the first half of the 21st century. Many of the things he said then are words we wish people had listened to years ago:

Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare.

Today the automobile is the most uneconomical user of energy. Its efficiency is 5% compared with 23% for the Diesel-electric railway. It is the most ravenous devourer of fossil fuels, accounting for over half of the total oil consumption in this country.

I suggest that this is a good time to think soberly about our responsibilities to our descendants--those who will ring out the Fossil Fuel Age.

This is a transcript of a speech by Richard K. Lester, MIT professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Industrial Performance Center, who spoke on 14 JUL 2008 at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association. The prepared version of Lester's speech is below the fold.

Lester is a co-author of recent MIT reports on the future of nuclear energy and coal energy, and he has published widely on the management and control of nuclear technology. He is currently leading the Energy Innovation Pathways Project, an interdisciplinary MIT assessment of the capabilities of the U.S. energy innovation system.

I found the speech interesting, so I thought I would bring it to you. A quote that particularly caught my eye is the following: "And so, to conclude, it is long past time for serious federal leadership on energy innovation. But it is also time to move beyond the Manhattan/Apollo Project metaphor. A better metaphor might be a domestic Marshall Plan for energy innovation. The original Manhattan project involved a relatively small number of people working in secret. The original Marshall Plan took everyone, working together, to rebuild the broken European economy."

Ed note from PG: I am happy to announce that TOD:C is up and running again (and I believe overdue thanks are in order to Stoneleigh and Ilargi, now over at The Automatic Earth, for their efforts here). One of the new editors is benk (and I believe you already know Khebab!).

Ben is completing his Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering in Canada. His research focuses on the fine details of solid oxide fuel cells, dealing with ceramics and long equations. He attributes his initial interest in energy to the documentary "The End of Suburbia," which he first saw about 4 years ago. Since then he has felt a duty to get the good word out. Ben has been the host of theWatt Podcast talking about various energy issues, a capacity we are exploring bringing the TOD. Welcome Ben!

To get TOD Canada rolling again, I've written a refresher on Canada's energy situation. Canada can't be ignored when it comes to energy. We are a land of plenty. Lots of land, lots of weather, lots of consumption, lots of production. Plenty can easily become scarce though and it has to be managed, and managed well. Management of our resources will be Canada's challenge in the years ahead. Unmanaged, Canada's energy consumption is close to the highest in the world and stands at 350 GJ/person, slightly more than in the U.S. and Canada's energy intensity is the worst in the G7 at 10.6 MJ per unit GDP.

This week Andris Piebalgs talks Nuclear in his blog. Without taboos, Andris lays down the advantages of Nuclear energy that have put it at the core of the Commission's New Energy Policy for Europe.

Nuclear energy has been discussed many times at TOD, mostly from a technical perspective, on its practicality and long-term sustainability. This time we look at Nuclear Energy policy, from the perspective of an Executive that has made a clear option towards this energy source.

Source: NewScientistTech (click to enlarge)

This is 4th in a continuing series of articles by Professor Charles Hall of the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and his students, describing the energy statistic, "EROI" for various fuels.

The concept of an energy theory of value has been around since (at least) the 1930s and net energy actually became part of law after Mark Hatfield petitioned Congress in 1970 regarding the importance of EROI. His efforts resulted in the passing of (now defunct) Public Law 93.577 which stipulated that all prospective energy supply technologies considered for commercial application must be assessed and evaluated in terms of their ‘potential for production of net energy”. However, insurmountable theoretical and practical difficulties arose when using the energy unit to understand, a) the conversion among disparate fuel types (energy quality), b) the contribution of the environment, and c) the boundaries of analysis. Despite these problems, energy analysis is grounded (largely) in physical principles, which gives it an important long term edge over financial analysis which may proximately be related to real things, but ultimately is related to the political will to print money.

Nuclear power is the logical step up in energy density from dung, wood, coal, oil..., but its scaling has been controversial and uncertain. Below is an overview of both the nuclear fuel cycle and its energy return. Please add your comments, links and expertise in a manner that Prof Goose is fond of saying, 'that would improve the silence'...;-)

We have run several articles recently on nuclear power and without fail they have stimulated enthusiastic debate. This is an opportunity to continue that debate. To start us off we have three guest contributions:

Skip Meier - Nuclear Waste
Bill Hannahan - We have yet to design the Model T of nuclear power plants
Charles Barton - Thorium Reserves

Last week the UK's Business Secretary, John Hutton gave one of the most pro-nuclear speeches from a Government minister in which he compared the potential of new nuclear development with the North Sea: "the most significant opportunity for our energy economy since the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas," (Platts). Labour MP Colin Challen responded with a letter in The Guardian:

John Hutton's latest reflections on nuclear power demonstrate how rapidly British energy policy is regressing to its default mode - dig it up and burn it. At the same time as we are promised the nuclear pipe dream, we are also set to have new coal-powered power stations without carbon capture and storage. This comes at the same time as we have fought for one of the lowest renewables targets in the EU, are languishing third from bottom in current renewables provision out of 27 EU states, and are announcing yet another microgeneration review.

The message Hutton's department seems to want to promulgate in its energy policy is to reassure everybody that no serious change is needed, that we should carry on increasing our demand for energy and that climate change isn't as urgent as some people make out. One can only conclude that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is utterly unfit for purpose and should have the title Department for Fiddling While Rome Burns.
Colin Challen MP
Lab, Morley & Rothwell

This is a guest post by Eugenio Saraceno, member of ASPO-Italy and consultant for energy sources management.

France's nuclear power plants produce almost 80% of the nation's electricity. In contrast, nearby Italy has no nuclear plant in operation.