By 2035, EIA expects energy consumption to increase 84 percent in nations that sit outside of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Those "non-OECD countries" are dominated by the likes of China, India, Russia and parts of the Middle East. Developed countries that are part of the OECD include the major countries of North America and Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.
OECD countries will account for just a 14 percent increase in energy consumption through 2035, EIA says.
Escalating energy demands from developing nations
Under EIA's scenario, business activity in OECD countries expands 0.9 percent annually. "Slow expansion of gross domestic product and low or declining population growth in many OECD nations contribute to slower anticipated rates of increase in commercial energy demand," says the report. The impact of companies' boosting their energy efficiency will also moderate energy consumption.
In the developing world, it's about population growth. The need for health care, education and social services will lead to the need for energy. As those economies get bigger, EIA says, compounding demand in the service sector also will boost the need for energy.
"The energy needed to fuel growth in commercial buildings will be substantial," says the report, "with total delivered commercial energy use among the non-OECD nations projected to grow by 2.7 percent per year from 2007 to 2035."
No less important to the prospect for greenhouse gas emissions is petroleum's future.
EIA lumps oil under a category called liquid fuels, which also includes ethanol, biodiesel and other petroleum-related products. Liquid fuels' share of the world energy market is expected to fall from 35 percent in 2007 to 30 percent in 2035. Consumption remains flat in the buildings sector, increases modestly in the industrial sector and declines in the electric power sector because of rising oil prices.
Biofuels and fuel from oil sands grow
A lot of people are buying cars in China. Oil prices might be on the rise, but EIA projects a 1.3 percent yearly increase in liquid fuel consumption, a 45 percent increase through 2035.
Unconventional petroleum, which often requires heavy energy use to produce, is expected to increase to nearly 13 million barrels a day in 2035 and account for 12 percent of total world supply. "Oil sands from Canada and biofuels, largely from Brazil and the United States, are the largest components of future unconventional production," says the report, "providing a combined 70 percent of the increment in total unconventional supply over the projection period."
Global natural gas consumption increases 44 percent under EIA assumptions. Industrial demand for gas plummeted in 2008 and 2009 as the economic recession ate into that sector. The broader world economy, however, is expected to rebound, and Asia uses far more natural gas for heavy industry than does the slower-growth U.S. economy. The power sector's share of the world's total natural gas consumption increases from 33 percent in 2007 to 36 percent in 2035.
Natural gas markets will be well supplied and prices relatively low, EIA projects, and gas will continue to be a focus for oil and gas producers in the Middle East, Africa and Russia.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add Comment"most new renewable generation technologies are not economically competitive with fossil fuels over the projection period, outside a limited number of niche markets."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh gee, ain't that just too bad, saving our planet may become an economic hardship, what are we going to do? boo-hoo
Anyone who is so concerned about the cost of cleaning up the earth....should build their home on a dirty landfill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBring babies into the world...but deny them health care!!
We know what kind of people they are!!!
Drilling for oil is ok,... but waste extra money to do it safe.
We know what kind of people they are too!
Those are the types of people that MADE the HUGE mess we are in now.
The report is more claptrap from the Big Oil lobby and its wholly owned subsidaries - the Senate and Congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe as usual antinuclear report shows nuclear power staying about the same proportion of our energy mix while ultra expensive "renewables", and coal and natural gas take off.
The truth is out - these dudes are global warming deniers.
Nuclear power is less expensive than coal or natural gas and a tenth the cost of any renewable option so obviously the report has some bias.
Here's the numbers
Solar
Largest solar installation in the US, just built, at Arcadia Florida 42 Gwh/annual $150M,$32B/Gw or 50 cents a kilowatt hour at Florida Power's discount rate.
Wind
Cape wind $20B/Gw 24 cents a kwh going to 34 cents over 15 years latest tariff agreement.
Natural Gas
Enmax, Calgary $1.0B/Gw, 1 cent a kwh CCGT gas + NG at 3.1 4.1 cents a kwh with NG at $3.6/1000 cuft.
Coal
Longview Power $4B/Gw,2.8 cents a kwh + Coal at 3.2
6.0 cents a kwh
Nuclear
AP1000 build $1.2B/Gw 2007, 1.3 cents a kwh
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=asia&sid=aJPyNB5Q_Fr0
That's Real cost of American nuclear power built by American engineers in five years or less overseas for public power companies instead of the attorney's, corrupt private power companies and pet politicians, and greedy wall street financiers taking ten years at four times the cost building the same nuclear plants in the US.
The simple, easy, cheap solution to the entire energy/peak oil/ climate warming problem starts with a conversion from coal and NG electricity and heating applications to mass produced nuclear electricity. The freed up gas would be available to make CNG, methanol, DME (propane), and synfuel transportion fuels.
A conversion from fossil fuels to mass produced nuclear reactors would eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives annually, end the global warming/ peak oil problem within a ten year time frame, provide a huge job producing boost to the economy, and require only a small part of our industrial capacity.
The US could do it with 2500 gigawatts of nukes at $2500B financed by the $800B paid every year into the coffers of Big Oil/Coal for their deadly products.
Could be all done ten years from now.
China is building 120 Gw's of nukes for 2020 service and is expecting one cent a kwh costs. We who invented nukes will be lucky to get 4 Gw's build by 2020.
India is planning 470 Gw's of nukes.
The EIA, I guess figgers those Indians and Chinese are dumber than stumps.
They sure have the genius's at the EIA fooled.
You reap what you sow, and we have sown the whirlwind. This remindes me of a sci-fi movie that I once saw where the villian steals money from a bank, as the world is being plunged into a global diaster, hides in a sewer drainage system in order to wait out the catastrophe. He finds himself engulfed in a flood that washes into the drain system and having to chose between the money or his life. We are at a crossroad where everything that has occured prior will be swept assunder and we will have to chose between the money or our lives, and history does not always repeat it self like a well worn record. What will it be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoe "the NG Salesman" Romm? This is the guy who sat on his hands after the Clinton Administration spent $1.5B on the SuperCar initiative, and proved Detroit could build 80mpg, full size, family cars. And then, abandoned the whole project, because Big Oil, didn't like the idea of big reductions in demand for gasoline.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.chicagopriusgroup.com/resources/SuperCar.pdf
http://www.pavilionboards.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10405
So now Joe spends his time pushing NG sales, with a little bit of impractical renewables thrown in, as a dodge. Joe and his buddies in Sierra Club, Greenpeace & RMI have conveniently forgotten how volatile the price of NG is, and how even a fraction of his NG Power proposals will push the price to a brutal & punishing level, that will leave seniors freezing to death in their homes, when they can't afford the high Winter Gas Bill. And Joe seems to have forgotten about the coming Peak Oil crisis, for which we need to use NG as feedstock for alternative fuels, mainly Methanol & DME. It costs 3.1 cents per liter to convert NG to Methanol & the energy cost of NG is 1/3rd that of Oil. Methanol burns at double the efficiency of gasoline in a converted diesel engine. It is incredible stupidity to use that precious, domestic stored energy resource to produce electricity, when Nuclear can do that much more cheaply, with ZERO CO2 emissions.
Once again the Shell Oil editors of SCIAM avoid using "the N word", they wouldn't want a REAL SOLUTION to Global Emissions. What the Oil Puppets won't tell you, is that factory production - the most basic tenet of modern industrial civilization - has not even being tried with commercial Nuclear Power.
How about we build those $12k per delivered kw Wind Turbines one-at-a-time, instead of in factories, then see how much they cost. And Solar PV, what's wrong with ordering them up, locally made & produced. Who needs scale economy & factory production. Then see what the present $25-$50k per delivered kw Solar costs. And yet even without factory production, Nuclear Power Plants are still managing to come in at $2-5k per kw. And Before the Fossil Fuel Lobbies had the NRC (Nuclear Rejection Commission) instated, Nuclear Reactors in the USA were coming in at an average of $1100 per kwe with Quad Cities 1800 MWe coming it at $680 per kwe, that's in 2007 dollars!! Indian 700 MWe Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors are expected to cost as low as $850 per kw.
You guys are scaring me with this Nuke stuff. We can do better than that. How about we simply REDUCE our need for energy and the products it produces. Dont' we have enough product in this world to add nuclear waste as another product to deal with? Isn't one car enough per family, do we really need both mom and dad working, wouldn't you like to have a garden of veggies rather than a 10 acre lawn with a 80 ton lawmower to cut it with??? We're pigs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat 75% of the worlds population living in the third world that don't have big screen tv's , cars, fridges, dryers, air conditioning all want them. Conserve away but the worlds energy needs now 90% produced by fossil fuels is going to keep growing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you drained Lake Erie you could fill it's 10000 sq miles forty feet higher every year with our coal ash.
All the world's nuclear waste would fit on a football field buried 1 meter deep , 28 miles from shore in the middle of that Lake Erie sized toxic radioactive waste dripping pile of coal ash
One football field ruined forever or hundreds of thousands of sq miles ruined forever by wind solar, coal, oil and hydro.. Seems simple doesn't.
Japan and France reprocess old fuel rods into nuke fuel for the current generation of reactors. We will likely be doing the same.
Nuclear waste is valuable nuclear fuel for the Gen IV reactors in service and planned around the world except the USA.- oddly we invented the technology. India is firing up a big one next year and Japan just got one of theirs up and running.
After powering the world on existing nuclear waste for hundreds of years the tiny amount of low level waste from these units would fit in a toolshed, stored for 30 40 years then burned up in a fusion reactor.
No worries!!!
In counting up the costs for production you forgot the other side of the thing- the use of energy. Much of energy is used for transpotation but even more (most of all) for heating and cooling houses. There already are techniques making the use of energy 50-90% smaller than today to this purpose. It�s coming more and more in Europe and it�s so effective that even goverments which pay subsidies to other "green" projects don�t support this - because there is no need. By the way, I am one of those you call "deniers". We are not one group that is homogeous so be careful with words. And think about this: The truth is out there, yes. People sceptical to climate-science are in general not under any influence of oil-companies. Or any other interests but the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I wrote a little while ago - producing energy is only one side of the thing. Using energy is the other, more attention could be put on that. Rational heating /cooling and transports are equally important as rational production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeth, you're conveniently neglecting to mention the fact that our current stock of nuclear waste will last between ten and several hundred THOUSAND years. Just sayin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand the temptation Seth, nuclear power is truly amazing. And I am sure that the technology is advancing with leaps and bounds. However, I have to trust China, the US, France, India and all the other countries moving this way. The more we take on, the closer we get to an accident. I'm sure when we started using fossil fuels for power they said, "Don't worry, it's safe" and look at us now. Isn't it about time we get the message, WE are pigs and we have to quit oinking so much, oink oink.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Seth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nuclear power is less expensive than coal or natural gas and a tenth the cost of any renewable option so obviously the report has some bias."
Really? A tenth of the cost? So when a nuclear power station cost about 5 billion dollar or more such as we see in Europe then we can expect a similar amount of power to cost 50 billion? Is that correct? Of course we are only talking about construction.
Also when you calculate this cost does it include the around a-clock security you need for the plant?
Does it include the cost of refueling the plant?
Does it include the decommissioning of the plant?
Does it include cost of storing and guarding the waste for centuries?
Does it include the environmental cost cleanup of of the uranium mining?
You have claimed that that renewables are ten times the cost. So let us itemize.
What is the cost of security over a century for a decommissioned windmill?
What is the cost of the storage of waste by product of a windmill for a century?
What are the external cost for the energy source of windmill? I know that for a nuclear power plant the uranium mining is not factored in, how about for a windmill?
What are the cost over the life time of windmill for maintenance versus say a nuclear plant?
How often do you have to stop and refuel a windmill? I know for modern nuclear plants it is every 18 months.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood to see that desire to learn here at SciAmerican
Yes ten times the real construction costs. I gave you Cape Wind and China's Ap1000 builds as examples. Typically wind is $12/Gw not including the massive transmission grid required normally doubling the cost. I understand you have these really really expensive reactors in Europe that you've forgotten how to build but you'll get it soon and after the first fifty are built why $1B/Gw is possible even in Europe.
US nuclear cost operating costs currently are 1.9 cents a kwh including fuel,decomissioning ,O&M, security, and waste storage. With modern more efficient reactors the fuel cost and O&M costs will drop considerably as well as waste storage as that is now fuel for gen 4 reactors. So the 1.9 should get down to .9 or so shortly.
The uranium mining is done in places like Canada and Australia and if there are any cleanup fees I'm sure those countries are tacking them on to the price of their fuel exports.
Windmill security is pretty lax these day. Just you wait till good ole boys find out how much fun it is to shoot out the blades. Really bad if they were foolish enough to not put up guards to keep kids out.
Maintenance of windmills is really high. The bearings go, the blades shatter (good ole boys again).
Windmills need to be refueled every 5 years - their blades are always shattering and breaking and what.
You forgot the fuel cost for wind usually because they are not required to pay for the cost of their own load balancing. That works out to 4 cents a kwh or so.
Thats why a $20B/Gw windmill farm like Cape Wind gets 24 cents a kwh tariff going to 35 cents a kwh over the 15 year life of the windmill because the darn things are always breaking down as they get older.
" I understand you have these really really expensive reactors in Europe that you've forgotten how to build but you'll get it soon and after the first fifty are built why $1B/Gw is possible even in Europe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above is speculation not fact. The facts on the ground are that the construction cost is NOW 50% more than was the estimate. The current cost to construct a 1.7 GW plant is 5 billion and counting. No speculation here.
" nuclear cost operating costs currently are 1.9 cents a kwh including fuel,decomissioning ,O&M, security, and waste storage. "
Where? Cite the independent study for this. So far all we are seeing is a Nuclear Industry that is privatizes the profit and socialize the cost.
"The uranium mining is done in places like Canada and Australia and if there are any cleanup fees I'm sure those countries are tacking them on to the price of their fuel exports."
1. You did not answer the question.
2. You are again speculating.
3. You are factually wrong in regards to the assertion that mining is not done in the U.S
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/umine.html
"Windmill security is pretty lax these day."
I can see it now. Terrorist take hold of a uh, windmill? Scary. Not.
"Just you wait till good ole boys find out how much fun it is to shoot out the blades."
Oh, we are back to speculating. I feel better now.
" Really bad if they were foolish enough to not put up guards to keep kids out."
Your right that is why we have security guards on all are power transmission towers... Oh, wait.
"With modern more efficient reactors the fuel cost and O&M costs will drop considerably as well as waste storage as that is now fuel for gen 4 reactors. So the 1.9 should get down to .9 or so shortly."
Once again Seth House of Speculation meets reality. I wonder who will win?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html
"Maintenance of windmills is really high. The bearings go, the blades shatter (good ole boys again)."
When can I expect that fictional novel of yours illustrating the tremendous dangerous of windmill catastrophes. I can see it now. The book turns into the latest blockbuster to hit the movie theaters since Avatar. Seth Dayal's: The Dutch Syndrome.
"Windmills need to be refueled every 5 years - their blades are always shattering and breaking and what."
Always? Got a industry report for me on blade shattering?
"You forgot the fuel cost for wind usually because they are not required to pay for the cost of their own load balancing."
Do they? I wonder.
@Trent1492
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy Trent now that you've found your way to sci american. all you have to do is learn to use GOOGLE and you will be able to answer all your questions by yourself.
$3B/Gw is a good price for the first units of a first of a kind reactor. I wonder if you can provide a source from your industrial engineering course work showing that factory production won't reduce costs. Westinghouse, AECL and the Chinese think it will drop costs below $1B/Gw. But you being an expert and all with and from Europe perhaps you can explain why a hand made Ferrari costs so much more than a factory produced model.
With your vast knowledge of nuclear engineering can you please please tell us what your research gives that contradicts the current cost of 1.87 cents - almost all fuel and O&M. What is the maintenance cost of 1960's tech compared to computer control.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/costs/
Fuel costs now .5 cent a kwh or so will drop to almost zero with the Gen IV reactors like India's.
With your vast knowledge of mining engineering do tell why the cleanup cost of a uranium mine is so much different than any other mine and why Canada for example doesn't insist the mine pay that cost.Why is the cleanup cost of a uranium mine any different than that for an iron mine needed to supply the tons of steel needed to built a windmill.
O&M costs of windmills are in the range of 3 cents a kwh. That's before the good ole boys start using them for targets.
Actual construction cost of a modern reactors.
http://www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx
Blade maintenance
http://www.china-windturbine.com/wind-turbines-blades.htm
"The traditional blades made in glass fiber reinforced plastic is not resistant to strong wind, it is easy to break at lower temperature and lasts less 3 years if used in strong wind areas."
FRP is a toxic waste. Try burning some and inhaling the smoke yourself instead of wishing it on your fellow citizens.
Because of the rapid ups and downs of wind turbines replacing only fast spooling low efficiency gas plants with high efficiency slow spooling versions actually produces less green house gases for the same amount of power than if the wind mill was never built.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf
Using Trents numbers for latest First-of-a-Kind Nuclear Power costs in Europe. 1.7 GW for $5B @ 90% C.F. = $3.3k per kwavg. Now let's compare this with the latest & greatest Denmark Wind Project(#1 Wind Energy country with 25ys of expertise-no F.O.A.K here) - Horn's Rev 2, the world's largest offshore Wind farm in the World is >$1 billion for 209 MW = $4785 per kwpk. At a generous 40% C.F (Denmark avg is 20%), that's $12k per kwavg. Add $1k for the long distance transmission lines, that's $13k per kwavg. And you still need an expensive backup power source for 60% of the total system energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExample, where is Wind in Ontario the past week? Record Heat Wave, Power is Peak, Power Costs through the roof (imports at up to $1 per kwh). Wind is at 5% of Capacity. Just about ZIP. This is typical of Wind. So Trent wants to ignore all the backup fossil fuel, smoke belching, CO2 spewing power needed to complement the unreliable Wind Energy.
Four studies confirm the obvious, including the shadowing Fossil Fuel power plant makes Wind an expensive, unreliable power source with ZERO EMISSIONS BENEFIT!
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wind-power.pdf
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/
http://ipams.org/wp-content/uploads/BENTEKStudy_How_Less_Became_More.pdf
http://wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/campbell-hot-air.pdf
Denmark is the Wind Energy capital of the World - 25 yrs of All-Out effort. Let's see the results of that Supreme Effort:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/DKTPES.pdf
The tiny little red line on top is Wind Energy ( most of which must be exported, only 1/4 to 1/2 is actually consumed in Denmark). See the huge purple, blue and green lines - that's dirty, filthy, GHG spewing Coal, Oil and Gas. The brown line is garbage and biomass burnt in smoke belching Thermal Power plants. Compare with France:
http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/FRTPES.pdf
See the big fat yellow line - that's Nuclear. The filthiest Coal line is mighty thin compared to Denmark's isn't it?
Denmark has the highest power rates in Europe and produces the highest CO2 emissions of 881 gm CO2 per kwh of electricity, #2 Wind Power Germany produces 601 gm CO2 per kwh, while Nuclear France produces 83 gm CO2 per kwh.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cI/page_335.shtml
And Trent is unaware of the cost reductions of Factory production. Nuclear has not even been done that way yet.
"3B/Gw is a good price for the first units of a first of a kind reactor."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is twice the cost of the original estimate. Why is it you refuse to read the article?
"I wonder if you can provide a source from your industrial engineering course work showing that factory production won't reduce costs. Westinghouse, AECL and the Chinese think it will drop costs below $1B/Gw."
Non sequiter: I do not have to be an expert to see that the reactors are COSTING more than 6 billion to BUILD.
"Westinghouse, AECL and the Chinese think it will drop costs below $1B/Gw."
Shorter Seth: I promise it will drop! Guaranteed!
Has not happened yet has it? Matter of fact, these promises of cheap nuclear energy have been promised for over a half -a-century. The nuclear industry is like what they say about Brazil. It is the country of the future and always will be.
"With your vast knowledge of nuclear engineering can you please please tell us what your research gives that contradicts the current cost of 1.87 cents - almost all fuel and O&M. What is the maintenance cost of 1960's tech compared to computer control. "
I am sorry you seem to have mistaken this thread for a online economics course as given by the Heritage Foundation. Sorry Seth, but the fact remains that the Nuclear Power Industry has always depended on state intervention in its favor. We can see this by the fact that to spite projects costs that spiral out of sight the nuclear power industry stills insists on huge tax payer subsidies.
"Fuel costs now .5 cent a kwh or so will drop to almost zero with the Gen IV reactors like India's."
India does not have Generation IV Reactors. Matter of fact, no one has Generation IV Reactors. Why lie? It is stupid to such a thing in the Age of Google. But hold it, maybe I wrong. Now please name the Generation IV commercial reactor currently operational in India. You have my apologies in advance. Now go earn it. I am waiting.
"That's before the good ole boys start using them for targets. "
Yes, we have already scene that scenario you have painted of the Hillbillies War on Windmills. Any other speculative scenarios you wish to engage in?
"Actual construction cost of a modern reactors.
http://www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx"
Oh, so now the Finn's and the French are lying about the actual cost of constructing those plants fascinating. Evidence?
Continued:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Blade maintenance
http://www.china-windturbine.com/wind-turbines-blades.htm"
From your own link on Chinese manufactured blades:
"The wind generators blade according to the airscrew structure and technics to manufacture, the wind blade has passed through the transient equilibrium test, firm and durable, design life for 8-10 years/"
So much for that every five years figure.
"FRP is a toxic waste. Try burning some and inhaling the smoke yourself instead of wishing it on your fellow citizens."
Oh, yes I see. How much is produce compared to the tailing of uranium mine? Care to compare and contrast? Oh, I forgot you think that the turbine has got to be reconstructed every year.
"Because of the rapid ups and downs of wind turbines replacing only fast spooling low efficiency gas plants with high efficiency slow spooling versions actually produces less green house gases for the same amount of power than if the wind mill was never built.
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf "
Sorry Seth but your link is not from a independent source and those assertions have no backing. Those links given in the PDF? They lead no where.
So Seth you got that Indian commercial Generation IV reactors name and location for me yet?
I'm sorry Trent that you are having such extraordinary difficulties with reading an' rithmetic and but have heart - such failings are common in the nuclear denier community.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you can call a friend for assistance.
You spewed.
" to construct a 1.7 GW plant is 5 billion and counting."
That is $3.0B/Gw. Your friend can help you with the rithmetic?
I gave the actual sales cost of a 4 westinghouse reactors $1.2/Gw Bloomberg to China and the actual build cost of a the twentieth or so Candu in China $2B/Gw (China News Agency) both reputable sources.
That you won't accept those as valid while your single one of a kind reactor built in Finland for the first time is. Again the nuclear denier religion rears its ugly head.
Perhaps your friend can help you with understanding this link which gives the cost of nukes in $2007 before the NRC got into action .
http://depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
Cost overruns were unknown before the NRC, and the American Power Act promises to make that right once more.
The friend might help you see how the NRC puts the shaft to American nuclear without safety improvements in a paper by well known respected nuclear power expert Bernard L. Cohen, DSc,Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Pittsburgh
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
His CV: http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=007699
I expect the costs of electric cars to drop with factory production just like computers and tv and stereos but in nuclear denier land nuclear costs always go up despite all evidence.
Maybe your friend at home can help you learn about GOOGLE. Give me one single current subsidy for nuclear power.
As an exercise your friend at home can help you GOOGLE Fast breeder reactors. There are two big ones operating Monju and Beloyarsk. Kalpakkam is due for service 2011/12 and several more are starting construction in China 2011.
I'm saddened your reading difficulties extended to the wind blade link. The traditional blade lasts 5 years. The new special super expensive blade lasts longer. Neither will survive the good ole boy.
I'll let you do the research on the tailings since it is you with the extraordinary claims. Good exercise for you to learn how to use GOOGLE.
Given your previous difficulties with simple reading and rithmetic I can understand why you struggled with engineer Lang's work on wind CO2 emissions. You can find him commenting on open threads at Bravenewclimate.com and I know he would welcome your criticisms of his work and character
It is possible to remove excess CO2 from the air by 2035. The technology uses biomass pyrolysis developped by the Eprida foundation, (www.eprida.com). The method is economically viable and plant is being produced and used to earn money. All that is required is to sell 5,000,000 pyrolysis units for small farmers and the problem is solved. Yet the method gets hardly any coverage, whereas such hypothetical schemes as spraying sulphur by aeroplanes get millions of dollars funding! Pyrolysis development has been funded solely by donations.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm going to throw my vote in for electically generated hydrogen to power our transportation system. Most internal combustion engines can be converted to run on H2 (I don't know about aircraft turbines), we understand how to store it in metal hydride, we know how to produce it, it doesn't generate GHG's, and burning it results in reuseable distilled water. Sounds to me like all we need to sort out is the distribution system and start making vehicles that will run on it. Where would the electicity come from? My vote goes to compact nuclear (I think about seven different companies are about to release truckable sealed nuclear generators) and any form of on site solar or wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSilly me, I forgot that vested interests in carbon fuel mining and distribution won't let this kind of thing happen while THEY are earning profits for THEIR shareholders. Even at the expense of the planet their children and grandchildren will need to live on until we all move to Mars or something after trashing this rock.
But back to reality. Large scale nukes are fat with drawbacks, cost being only the first of many. Compact nukes (provided they work as advertised) suffer only the drawback of initial cost, and that could drop significantly if mass production became a demand. From what I've read so far (unfortunately, mostly from manufacturer websites) it sounds good enough for me to put one under my four acres and sell the excess back to the local power company! Really, though I ain't got that kind of cash ($20-30M if I remember correctly)
As for Gen4 reactors, last I saw they were still in the R&D phase. As for nuclear waste, salt domes in New Mexico are already taking it. Self sealing, geologically stable, local community support for the project; can't beat that. I don't see the folks at the TVA Kingston Power Plant clamoring for more toxic coal sludge to be stored in their backyards.
The bottom line here is that solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass electric generation show no near term capacity to meet the global power needs. Only nuclear appears to be a viable option. The holdup is public fear of large scale nuclear plants and the bureaucratic gordian knots required to get one built. Compact nuclear could side step or minimize some of these concerns for a few orders of magnitude less cost. And the spent reactor is simply trucked to the salt dome when a new one gets plugged into the grid. I'm sorry that I am not as technically savvy as other contributors to this chat so I can't give any financial analysis of this idea.
Compared to what we are now paying and will pay (financially, socially, environmentally, politically, sustainably), H2 looks rather viable if produced from distributed solar (local PV and Concenctrated electric) and compact nuclear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime is up. We already have one degree Celsius global temperature increase from fossil fuel. We already exhausted the second degree worth of CO2 equivalent into the atmosphere and haven't felt it yet. Our energy debt keeps going up but we (admittedly, me included) still don't have an energy job to meet the payments!
Wind. Tell Elon Musk to make me a $30K van to make my deliveries and I'll buy it if I can charge it with my $75K wind turbine. PV. How many acres do you have to run your house and vehicle. Concentrated solar. The best I've found is Stirling Energy Systems (SES) and that is a scalable 25KW unit for the power industry, not you and me. I'm open to other options but they can't include last gen nukes or continued fossil fuels. Any ideas...?
Pyrolyse biomass and you are left with carbon and hydrogen. The reaction is exothermic, so it requires no energy input. See www.eprida.com for details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI checked out the Eprida website. The site needs work but the concepts are very impressive. Having once been a farmer, I could of used a set up like that. What seems to be the holdup for more widespread use of this system. The technology appears to be well understood. I would expect that the average family farmer doesn't have the time to monitor and maintain such a system and capital costs may hinder installation. Have they run 'the numbers' to determine if this would be profitable for an average family farmer? Perhaps a co-op? Maybe an independant business in a rural community? What kind of safety concerns would permitting need to have addressed for a certificate of occupancy on such an installation? The website wouldn't open the necessary tabs and I had to fudge a bit to get the PowerPoint presentation to open. I wonder if Energy Secretary Chu is aware of this and if DOE is considering replacing the energy consuming production of ethanol with this carbon capture in soil with H2 byproduct process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this