TURNED TO STONE: A new experiment in Iceland aims to store captured CO2 permanently by turning it into rock.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Debivort
In a new experiment, Iceland is looking to replace its smokestacks with well injectors to permanently sequester its carbon dioxide emissions.
Researchers are now pumping CO2 underground in a process that will convert the greenhouse gas into rock. This technique may be a model for other power plants and factories to control their emissions, creating a climate change solution literally set in stone.
"Carbon dioxide capture and storage is important because we depend on fossil fuels, and we will depend on fossil fuels for the next 50 to 100 years," said Juerg Matter, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University.
"This is bad news for global climate change, especially greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In terms of climate change, we have to decarbonize our energy infrastructure," he added.
The CarbFix pilot program aims to resolve this problem by capturing carbon dioxide from the Hellisheiði Power Station, Iceland's largest geothermal heat and energy facility and the second-largest in the world.
The 300-megawatt plant taps heat and gas pockets up to 1.2 miles below the surface to drive seven turbines. In the process, Hellisheiði releases steam, which makes up roughly 99.5 percent of its emissions. The rest is mostly carbon dioxide, along with small amounts of hydrogen sulfide, argon and methane.
Matter, who works with the program, said CarbFix is the first system that injects carbon dioxide into basalt, a form of volcanic rock. "The capacity of these rocks, the storage capacity, could be very large," he said.
Going from acid to rock
Waste carbon dioxide is first separated from steam and then dissolved in water, forming carbonic acid. The solution is then pumped 550 yards underground into a basalt formation, where the acidity leaches elements like calcium and magnesium from the surrounding rocks. Over time, the solution flows through the basalt formation and these elements recombine to form minerals like limestone.
Iceland makes an ideal test site because the ground beneath the island nation is 90 percent basalt, which is formed by volcanic activity. The country also generates most of its energy from geothermal sources.
However, CarbFix is not without its challenges. The project's current phase injects carbon dioxide from a nearby geothermal well instead of the generation plant. Though the project started in 2007, the team only started injecting the well in January and will begin to inject from the geothermal plant itself in April.
"We assumed that the main difficult part of the experiment would be injecting the gas. Instead, we are delayed by the gas separation stage," explained Edda Aradóttir, the project manager for CarbFix. "It has turned out to be a much more complex task than we thought."
Separation anxiety
The hydrogen sulfide proved very troublesome because it corroded the hardware and formed compounds that hampered the processing equipment when it was separated from the steam. The current phase injects only carbon dioxide, while the next phase will also inject hydrogen sulfide into the basalt.
Other issues included developing new instruments and techniques to monitor rock formations deep underground, said Aradóttir. The team also had to engineer a system to transport the carbon dioxide from the sources to the injection well.
The whole process is also resource-intensive, requiring large amounts of water and electricity. The carbon dioxide may also take anywhere from a few months to a few years to be converted fully to stone. "This kind of experiment is very expensive," admitted Aradóttir. "We're not at the commercial stage yet."
Still, the idea has immense potential. Basalt formations are found in many parts of the world, and the CarbFix site can store billions of tons of carbon dioxide, Matter said. Unlike other forms of carbon storage, waste gases can be converted to stone at relatively shallow depths, the leakage risk is minimal and the results are permanent.
See what we're tweeting about
67 Comments
Add CommentCouldn't agree more Seth, the bias and truth twisting inherent in this story is obvious to anyone educated in the field. This author is either uneducated in the subject, or is plain corrupt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll you have to do is look at the costs of these 'experimental' projects and how they have all, thus far, failed to capture any CO2 what so ever. Fact of the matter, if you want to capture 10% of the CO2 from a coal plant using any foreseeable technology of the next 50 years, you immediately have to multiple the cost of construction by 10 fold and decrease your operating efficiency by 20-40%. This makes coal less efficient and less profitable than a bunch of hamsters running on a wheel.... just kidding, but not really. Coal is already less economical than nuclear, wind and gas, and soon to be overtaken by solar as well.
I assisted in the design of a activated carbon particulate system which sprays tiny carbon particuls into the gas stream... the flue gas is mixed constantly as it winds its way around, constantly adding more carbon. This system was able to capture 1% of the CO2 from the plant... but 98% ended up being re-released from the activated carbon as it sat in a silo waiting to be picked up. That project cost close to a billion dollars, turned out to be a complete waste, and, thus far, is the best design I have seen for carbon capture.
The difficulty with carbon capture is inherent. Your taking coal, which is 60-90% solid carbon, and turning it into a gas by combining it with O2. Sequestration of the gas is inherently impossible because, as we all learned in chemistry, a certain mass of gas takes up a heck of a lot more space than the same mass of a solid... generally. So now, in order to make it practical, we have to take the gas we just produced and turn it back into a solid... remember, that’s 60-90% of it. So, unless there planning to violate the first law of thermodynamics, 60-90% reduction in power production is going to be needed at a minimum.
In other words, even if they successfully and permanently find a way to sequester it, it can never be economical.... it guarantees operating at power deficit.... They might as well try for a perpetual motion machine.
The article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If it's mineralized within a human lifetime, then we know we are on a successful pathway."
How many human lifetimes do we have to experiment with before carbon emissions are expected to produce severely impacting climate changes? If it takes decades to confirm that this process is effective (much less commit to its large scale implementation) I'm afraid it may be too late...
I remember reading a couple of years ago about the same or very similar method being trialled somewhere in the US. If I remember correctly, it consumed something like 30% of the power being generated. I will try & find the reference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Over time, the solution flows through the basalt formation and these elements recombine to form minerals like limestone."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe I missed it, but how long is "over time?" What kind of time frame are we talking about?
How to handle carbon dioxide? Lock it in rock
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnderground storage could provide solution to keep gas from atmosphere
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22506764/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/how-handle-carbon-dioxide-lock-it-rock/
Currently only a pilot program is running in Walla Walla county, Washington. After five years of developing the method, surveying the site, and testing the seismic stability of the rocks, the project started its first drill in January 2009 (Hillhouse). According to the Big Sky Project website, 1,000 tonnes of CO2 have successfully been injected this year and will be monitored for the next year. Upon success of this pilot project, Big Sky plans to implement a commercial-scale test, on the scale of 1 million tonnes of CO2 sequestered.
http://igutek.scripts.mit.edu/terrascope/?page=Basalt
There are many other studies under way. You need to take cost estimates with a grain of salt. For example the processes are highly corrosive to equipment so infrastructure life as well as power consumption for separation, liquefaction, pumping etc.
What is also interesting with the subject of this article is that it shows one of the favoured green alternative energy sources produces copious quantities of Co2. The Australian project conducted by a company call Geodynamics has cost over $100M so far & failed during trials. The hot water circulating through the deep granite hot rocks from thousands of feet underground is highly corrosive & has caused one of the wells to blow out.
Every energy and greenhouse gas article on this site seems to be a magnet for trolls who have already decided what's right and just need to tell the rest of us what that is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks to Carlyle for bucking this trend and exemplifying an open mind.
What's right isn't at issue, infact its a non issue, its about simple old fashion advantages and disadvantages. What's at issue is profitability, sustainablity, health, economy, independance etc...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo determine the best course of action based on these variables is extremely simple if done honestly. And the answer is always the same with any reasonable attempt to crunch the numbers. The numbers do change with time, but the true change results from politics, religion, media, etc..
The point is, everyone knows coal is going out the door....tva for example now produces 100mw more of gas generation than coal.... Wind in certain areas is more economical than coal. Nuclear has always been better on all variables than coal.... Including and especially related to human health... Just because you don't beleive in global warming doesn't mean you can't beleive in cancer.
No, there are few reasons left to support coal at this stage. Maybe.you work at a coal site, which would make you seem selfish. Maybe you just beleive in a 100% true no holds barred democracy where people can do anything they want... Maybe you own a lot of stock in coal companies who are going to lose because they refuse to invest in cleaner energy, the CEO's of these companies care only about maximum immediate profit regardless of the cost to the variables previously mention... Above article studying impractical solutions to a easily workable problem with existing valid solutions is a perfect example. Study impractical solutions so you can avoid having to implement real ones.
Another thing to keep in mind is they are very obvious skewing the numbers... It's geothermal site.... 2% of its emmisions are carbon? From what, the startup generators?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLol, omg... Read the article again, 99.8% steam... No wonder they are having a hard time, we can't even do it when its 90% co2.... Lol that is funny.
Gotta give it to the Iceland peoples... Going out of there way and spending all that money just to sequester .2% of the co2 produced by a very small single unit coal site. Maybe they're trying to set an example for the real polluters... Iceland is like 98% geothermal generation or there abouts.
You have to give it to the Icelanders. They don't really have to go to all this trouble of converting CO2 into carbonic acid and injecting it underground to form limestone. CO2 can be directly reinjected to the geothermal well together with the steam. That's already being done by geothermal plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbon storage may not be viable for coal because it is solid and produces a bigger volume of CO2 gas. But how about natural gas? CO2 and methane are both gases. Reinject CO2 to the gas well. How about oil? Dissolve CO2 in water to form carbonic acid. Oil and carbonic acid are both liquids. Reinject carbonic acid to the oil well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article states: "...The country also generates most of its electricity from geothermal sources..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong.
http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=IS
Geothermal: 27% of Electricity Generation in 2009
Conventional Hydro: 73%
They just built a 670 MW Hydro plant, and they went conventional Hydro rather than Geothermal.
Geothermal does supply most of their low grade, mostly building heat, something that Geothermal is good for in excellent locations, as Iceland is.
What's keeping history from repeating itself?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008082460_nukeop31.html
"Like most nuclear projects, the Supply System's plants took far longer than expected to build while cost estimates ballooned.The Supply System was approaching financial hell in the early 1980s. The disastrous brew of construction delays, cost overruns, public suspicion and declining demand put the agency in an untenable position. The plants, initially slated to cost about $4.5 billion, were estimated in 1981 at $23.9 billion.
Bonneville ratepayers get the energy from Columbia Generating Station but must pay bondholders for that reactor and two projects the Supply System terminated in 1994. Approximately 15 percent of a residential ratepayer's electric bill still goes for principal and interest on the three plants."
The AP1000 might be "simplified" at the margins, but these reactors are still required to operate for 40 - 80 years without melting down regardless of what people and Mother Nature throw at them. Well, what do you expect from a fuel cycle developed during the Manhattan Project to make weapons-grade material...
The CO2 comes from within the Earth...you know...just like from all those volcanos you probably think are causing climate change. Yes, CO2 comes from volcanic emissions (although it's only %1 of the amount that humans put in the air). However, it's been trapped there for millions, if not billions, of years and the biosphere has been chugging along happily without it. This is the same reason why biological carbon cycles through the biosphere while the fossil carbon we release builds up in the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoethermal power developed properly has been meeting electrical needs reliabliy for decades:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geysers
I tried finding info on Geodynamics but I found nothing about the difficulties they have had recently. Could you post the link?
There is nothing recent but: May 22, 20093:45PM
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/geodynamics-sa-project-delayed/story-e6frede3-1225714909765
FIRST energy production at Geodynamics' geothermal project in far north South Australia has been delayed indefinitely, while the company examines what caused a well to blow out a month ago.
Geodynamics said it had brought the Habanero-3 well under control, 28 days after an incident which led to steam and water escaping from the 4.2km deep well.
Nearly three years later, they still have not managed to produce power in their small trial power plant. By the way, I was personally a heavy loser on this. It & hydro being the only two alternative energies that I felt hold the prospect of being able to supply base load power. Shallow schemes using geothermal springs have been used for years but this was the first attempt to harness the vast resources of hot rocks more than four kilometres deep. I held shares from shortly after the inception of this company, personally knowing the original managing director; however there has been a litany of failures. Kilometres of lost drill stems & failed wells & the blow-out reported above. It is not a matter of bad management; it is simply much more difficult & expensive than previously thought. The idea of cheap power from this source has joined all the other alternative schemes in being many times more expensive than was predicted. The rock, granite, is heated by natural radioactive decay by the way.
I would have saved myself a packet if I had got out when I learned Australias chief government adviser on climate had become a shareholder. The government kicked in another $90M. Then the proverbial hit the fan. So I lost as a shareholder & a tax payer.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_is_this_government_taking_advice_from_flannery/
Just have a look at this disaster.
"The idea of cheap power from this source has joined all the other alternative schemes in being many times more expensive than was predicted."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow so? Solyndra went bankrupt partly because solar panels are a lot LESS expensive than they had predicted. It's not prudent to lay down blanket statements like this based on one bad experience.
Here's the latest info I could find:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Geodynamics-finds-Habanero-3-incident-cause-V59XF?OpenDocument
Yeah, geothermal power is risky, but if we're okay with fracking going on at hundreds of sites around the globe, we should be okay with trying to see how we can get enhanced geothermal systems to be economical.
Note the presence of Co2 also. This is not necessarily a problem as the idea is for it to be a closed system with the heat being recovered via heat exchangers. The fluid directly circulating through the hot rocks would not normally escape. The main problems are the technical difficulties in drilling so deep in such a hot & chemically hostile environment. I suspect radon gas escape could also be a problem though I have not read anything about it. Again, if it is a closed system, that should not be a problem. Probably the main problem is the rate of heat regeneration. The temperature has built up over geological time. When it is removed, the recharge time necessitates continually drilling new wells. By the time an area regenerates, the original wells are likely to either be useless or extremely expensive to rehabilitate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately it is unlikely to be the panacea I & other investors had hoped for.
"You have to give it to the Icelanders."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Agreed
"Carbon storage may not be viable for coal because it is solid and produces a bigger volume of CO2 gas. But how about natural gas?..."
-Its a bit more complicated than that. The gas in these wells is under an enormous amount of pressure inside the tiny pours of these rocks.. Firstly, your not going to get it back in the pours of the rocks, that would be impractical. So your left with pumping the gas around the rocks. In the olden days, fracking was often down with CO2.. today, massive amounts of water and chemicals... i.e. the water and chemicals are already filling in a lot of space. Besides, the issue isn't really whether or not its possible, the issue is whether its feasible and sustainable, and if it aint profitable it certainly won't be sustainable... its about energy balance and it always takes more energy to try and restore a system than it does to corrupt one.
"Geothermal does supply most of their low grade, mostly building heat"
-FYI- Heating/AC is the most energy intensive items in the household, along with washers/dryers, dishwashers...
-Accounting for that, i suspect at least 50% of their energy is from geothermal, but i have heard higher numbers.. but your right, the author is an idiot for not drawing the distinction between energy and electricity.
"The AP1000 might be "simplified" at the margins, but these reactors are still required to operate for 40 - 80 years without melting down regardless of what people and Mother Nature throw at them. Well, what do you expect from a fuel cycle developed during the Manhattan Project to make weapons-grade material..."
-Design life is inherent in every generating station, what's your point? Oh, your concerned about meltdowns across that time... well, fear not... if every nuclear plant on the planet went into immediate unchecked meltdown, the death tool wouldn't hold a candle to that of fossil fuels. 28 million people a year die of cancer, a minimum of 34% of these cases is cause directly by air born pollution (WHO). Also, a meltdown is bad, but not as bad as most think. A nucleear explosion is not possible.. Also, the AP1000 is build like a brick shithouse, review the design before knocking it. And it isn't "regardless of what nature can throw at them"... its "design the plant so that if a natural desaster ever does cause a meltdown, the effects of the natural disaster will be of a much a higher concern than the effects of the meltdown"... I do beleive this was the case at Fukishima, and think it was a well built plant.
Nah, I was just commenting on how the ratepayers in Washington State got screwed, and are STILL BEING screwed, by the spectacular failures of the nuclear industry. What's so different now to prevent this from happening again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, nuclear projects rarely go over budget... Not that there is much to compare, we still haven't built one in over 30 years. But the regulations are so tight and the nuclear process is so simple that it is really hard to screw it up.... Unless of course your talking about corruption. I'd be interested to know what gave you that impression, that nuclear projects go over budget a lot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter reading the article, I fully expect the same people opposed to fracking in natural gas development to be equally opposed to this process, making the same claims they make about fracking. Geothermal energy development also normally uses hydraulic fracturing (AKA "fracking" as opponents now call it), but instead of deep in the middle of a sedimentary basin, the fracking is done in an area known to be tectonically active where the crust is very thin (thus the heat close to the surface). Geothermal projects are well-known to trigger earthquakes, and in fact this has already been a problem at the Hellisheiði Power Station discussed in the article (see links below). Earthquakes caused by geothermal energy development have been large and damaging, for instance in 2006 in Basel, Switzerland 100 quakes occurred in one week, the largest 3.4 on the Richter scale, causing an estimated $9 million dollars in damage. A scientific review calculated a 15 percent chance that further drilling could spur a major earthquake causing more than $500 million in damage, so the project was shut down. (as previously discussed in Scientific American, links below) This was from "enhanced geothermal system" (EGS) technology which uses hydraulic fracturing to enhance or create permeability in rock that otherwise would not allow fluid flow - i.e., "fracking" just as in shale gas and shale oil development. (NOT "oil shale" but "shale oil" - which are, confusingly, two different things)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, THIS project is discussing using injection wells to dispose of acidic unwanted waste produced along with geothermal energy, and in the case of hydrogen sulfide, highly toxic waste. Injection wells have long been known to induce seismicity ("i.e., cause quakes") and are the actual suspected cause of temblors incorrectly blamed on "fracking" by the popular press and the anti-fracking industry. Guy, Arkansas and Youngstown, Ohio are two such cases of possible quakes induced by injection disposal wells, which aren't even "fracked" and aren't oil or gas wells at all, blamed on "fracking" by a press seemingly too lazy, or too fond of a sensational headline, to check facts before reporting.
So here we have a way of producing energy, geothermal, that uses fracking, causes quakes some of which have been strong and damaging, and now involves injecting acidic toxic waste products only 550 feet deep into an active tectonic zone.
.. (continued below)
..(comment 23 continued)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo where are the protests from the anti-fracking industry and their "GasLand" zombies? Are the usual anti-tech herd of neo-luddites, primitivists, and eco-communalists going to jump on this, too? How can their leadership NOT issue marching orders to their astroturf groups and direct their followers' howls of emotion-based techno-fear and chemophobic visions of doom at this geothermal technology? It has every element they profess to believe catastrophic, doesn't it?
It will be interesting to see, if this is or is not targeted for mass protest by the anti-frackers. If it is not, then (to me, at least) that will further confirm my own developing opinion that anti-frackers aren't really against fracking - they're simply against all hydrocarbon production no matter what, and hate fracking because it has brought about the birth of a global growth in reserves and production that will last for many decades. The same fracking with the same, or even greater, risks, when used for geothermal energy may not bring a peep of protest from the anti-frackers. If they don't protest this, it will be such a tell they might as well be playing with their cards face up.
By the way, I like this geothermal technology overall and I'm 100% for it. I think we're going to desperately need the energy, and I think the risks can be understood, controlled and minimized as the necessary science and engineering for geothermal energy further develops.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geothermal-drilling-earthquakes
http://howlandiceland2011.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/geothermal-causes-quakes-in-hveragerdi/
http://www.cst.net/geoscience/oil-business/133-anti-frackers-peak-oil-and-hobbits
http://www.cst.net/geoscience/oil-business/131-fracking-the-etymological-battle
http://www.cst.net/geoscience/oil-business/132-bill-mckibben-eco-communalism-and-the-anti-fracking-industry
Actually they are gladly enjoying the clean and green baseload power coming in at 4 cents a kwh and the clean air the replacement coal plants would have sullied.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Reinject CO2 to the gas well. ... Reinject carbonic acid to the oil well."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not viable in a shale gas or shale oil well because the shale is largely impermeable and won't take up the injected fluids.
CO2 injection as a "drive" mechanism to maintain formation pressure and drive oil & gas to production wells, attempting to better sweep the reservoir, IS currently used in some "old fashioned" high permeability oil reservoirs. CO2 sequestration is another happy aspect of that effort.
However, changing the formation fluid chemistry and pH by injecting carbonic acid could have deleterious effects on the formation, causing unwanted reactions and/or causing precipitants to form and clogging the porosity.
"So where are the protests from the anti-fracking industry and their "GasLand" zombies?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-Lol, firstly, I didn't realize there was an anti-fracking industry... What does this supposed industry produce? Second, calling an environmentalist a zombie doesn't do a thing to support your arguement, it merely puts you on par with Rush Limblah-blah. Thirdly, read the previous comments and you'll see the protests are right there for you to read. Quadly, yes, there are similar concerns for geothermal fracking as opposed to gas fracking... the difference, the reason one is more discussed more than the other, is because gas fracking is widespread using experimental technologies who's long term effects are only beginning to be realized... whereas, geothermal fracking just as experimental, but this is why they are experimenting prior to fracking the entire planet... do you see the difference? Pentaly, geothermal fracking is not sequestration as discussed in this article and it is not the disposal of toxic boron and similar... i.e., you pump cold water to fracker hot rocks, not chemicals to essential disolve and break rock... so there is zero danger of water contamination by industrial bioproduct sequestration. yes, as you admit yourself there are concerns with both as people have already stated, hence the experimental stage of geothermal and the already wide spread use of gas.
"Are the usual anti-tech herd of neo-luddites, primitivists, and eco-communalists going to jump on this, too?"
-Actually, learn what a luddite is before you call people one.. luddite is a derogatory term used to describe people who refuse to progress with technology... i.e. anyone who supports the obsolete fossil fuel.
"How can their leadership NOT issue marching orders to their astroturf groups and direct their followers' howls of emotion-based techno-fear and chemophobic visions of doom at this geothermal technology?"
-Simple, because a single experiment is a hell of a lot different than 20,000 experiments geographically dispersed throughout the country. Do you see the distinction clearly now?
"they're simply against all hydrocarbon production no matter what,"
-true, its obsolete on every front.. the only reason not to change is to maximize profit from existing investments without the need to reinvest, its called being a luddite.
"and hate fracking because it has brought about the birth of a global growth in reserves and production that will last for many decades."
-Right, that makes sense, they don't like it because it's good, smart logic there.
"if it aint profitable it certainly won't be sustainable... its about energy balance and it always takes more energy to try and restore a system than it does to corrupt one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is always cheaper to dump CO2 to the atmosphere than to collect, treat and store it. So it certainly will be
less profitable. It is a matter of minimizing the cost but technically feasible. BTW it is not restoring the natural system but further corrupting it by injecting a gas (CO2) unnatural to the source rock.
"changing the formation fluid chemistry and pH by injecting carbonic acid could have deleterious effects on the formation, causing unwanted reactions and/or causing precipitants to form and clogging the porosity"
Carbonic acid will dissolve alkalines from solid to liquid so it will probably increase porosity of rock.
"Probably the main problem is the rate of heat regeneration. The temperature has built up over geological time. When it is removed, the recharge time necessitates continually drilling new wells. By the time an area regenerates, the original wells are likely to either be useless or extremely expensive to rehabilitate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe magma deep underground will remain hot for thousands of years. Heat loss in geothermal fields is due to loss of ground water and pressure. In steam engine analogy, the boiler remains hot but if you lose steam and pressure, the heat will not reach the piston.
The life of geothermal field can be extended to 100 years or more by steam/water reinjection and preservation of ground water.
Please show me the budgeted cost and actual cost of a few reactors to prove that they "rarely" go over-budget. If your definition of "rarely" is one-in-10, then I'll need AT LEAST 10 examples with 9 of them staying at or below budget estimates to believe you. Given the ACTUAL history of the nuclear industry however, you'll be hard-pressed to find info to back up your claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey only get power from ONE plant and are still paying for the failures and defaults of the industry back BEFORE I WAS BORN! My main point was that the nuclear industry has an extremely poor track record completing plants on-time and on-budget. When you're looking at a $20B+ bill for 2 reactors (in 1982 dollars, mind you!), there's NO WAY it can be deemed "economical". Sure, the one functioning plant produces power cheaply, just like living in a mansion is cheap once the mortgage is paid off. But JUST TRY getting $.04 / kWh out of a new plant! Ratepayers in South Carolina are on the hook for OVER 1 BILLION $$$$ before they even get ONE kWh out of the Vogtle plant! In the wake of the Fukushima Disaster and the new backup safety systems prudence requires, these plants are going to get even more expensive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey, if you're so concerned about earthquakes happening around geothermal energy sites, you SHOULD be concerned about the quakes that keep popping up around some fracking or waste disposal sites. Or what about the groundwater pollution, or the air pollution, or the methane leaks associated with fracking? And it's weird how you think wastewater disposal is somehow NOT associated with fracking. Is going to the bathroom not associated with eating? Just like a horse and carriage, "You can't have one without the other"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeothermal energy from hot rocks as opposed to volcanic vents is derived from radioactive decay in the small quantities of uranium & possibly other radioactive elements contained in granite, not from magma. This heat takes a very long time to accumulate. No water is removed with the hot rocks technology, in fact it is introduced & percolated between two wells through minature fissures introduced by fracking the solid rock. Heat is recovered from the system via a heat exchanger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not know how many times other posters have told you & I have no reason to believe you will listen to me either. It is the emotive interference by people who do not know what they are talking about that has prevented the further development & widespread uptake of nuclear energy. Fighting this ignorance & the restrictions it imposes is what has also hugely inflated costs. Ignorance, not risk, resulting in the continuing expansion of coal fired generation. Green ideology is causing pollution on a massive scale & you are contributing to it with your continued non-scientific opposition to nuclear energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope, the cost of nuclear energy is holding it back:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008082460_nukeop31.html
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/06/207833/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve/
Notice how the $$$/kW for nuclear QUINTUPLES (even adjusted for inflation) between the 60s and the 90s. These are the FACTS. You can't argue with history. The spectacular failures of the nuclear industry left a bad taste in the mouth of electric utilities and ratepayers alike. The nuclear industry is hoping you will forget this so they can take even MORE of YOUR money to build their money-sucking reactors.
These plants are just too big and complicated while the incentive to lowball their schedule and cost estimates are too great for them to be prudent investments for our energy dollars.
Salt, we seem to be on the same side, so if your all about renewables we're good. But let me edge you towards nuclear. I'm not claiming nuclear is perfect, but compared to coal its 920389283918% more perfect. What are a few of your recommended solutions just so we know, Gas? Conservation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, the math is simple. Due to the long refueling cycle, you operate at comparably little cost to coal. One plant I know of burns more than 1 ton of coal per second per unit there about, whereas a nuclear site uses about 1500 tons or so every two years, and its containable, and recyclable. Even with an average $7B price tag, and the intentionally over burdensome regulations, its still more profitable than coal. Hey, I work in both industries, and I'm all for the over burdensome regulations, I just think coal should be held to the same standard. Not out of ideology, but out of the understanding that coal is actually more dangerous, its health and environmental effects are far more damaging and constant. However, if coal ever were held to the same standard it would cease to exist.
Hey, America does have a pretty crappy record of building power plants and industrial facilities, and waste treatment facilities (lol), and chemical plants, etc, etc, etc... we have a pretty bad reputation compared to the aforementioned icelandians... but look to other countries for the successes, and you'll see plenty... it can be done and the corruption and needs to be addressed in America. The burning of million year old fermenting animal and plant matter has got to stop though... serial guys, serial.
The truth about NPP costs in the USA, Before the NRC, NPP's 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!! With Wind @ $12k per kw and Solar at $30-$80k per kw. And shadowing fossil fuels will still supply 70-90% of the system energy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrary to Sault, LWR's are not that difficult to build and are really quite simple-minded compared to modern industrial process. "What does it cost to build a nuclear plant? What could it cost?":
depletedcranium.com/hope-this-works/
Bernie Cohen, "COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS - WHAT WENT WRONG?". An actual intelligent detailed analysis, not Sault's Joe Romm "i can put some pretty dots on a graph" special.
www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html
Nuclear Power costs were forced up due to the efforts of Fossil Fuel vested interests:
atomicinsights.com/2012/01/cloistered-nuclear-scientists-needed-sun-tzus-advice-know-your-enemy.html
"...Organized opposition had begun, arguing environmentalism initially, and then joined by proliferation-related attacks. In the last year or two of the sixties the attacks had begun and with growing influence, by the mid-seventies the anti-nuclear groups had had their way. Their strategy focused on driving up the cost of nuclear power plant construction, so far up that the plants would be uneconomic, if possible. To do so, they attacked every issue that could be used to insert the legal system into interference with construction decisions, blocking construction progress by any means possible. In so doing they introduced very lengthy construction delays. Success in delaying nuclear construction while interest on the borrowed construction funding kept increasing and increasing eventually made their argument self-fulfilling. They had made their assertion a reality; nuclear construction was now expensive. Every possible facet of the legal system was used. Plant after plant with financing in place for billions of dollars, and interest charges running up, had construction held up month after month, year after year, by one legal challenge after another, as a rule related in some way to environmental permits. Nuclear opponents could congratulate themselves; they had destroyed an industry. ..led to similarly destructive movements in other countries too. The world then went back to fossil energy and hundreds, more probably thousands, of new fossil fuel plants.."
The truth about Nuclear Costs:
depletedcranium.com/why-i-hate-the-nrc/
depletedcranium.com/hey-hey-ho-ho-the-nrc-has-got-to-go/
Thanks dw, to quote bob marley's redemption song, "oh, have no fear for de atomic energy, cause none a dem can a stop a de times."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, that's great...you present a bunch of conspiracy theories I already debunked a while ago. Seriously, what don't you understand about the fact that nuclear construction imploded in this country in the 80s, taking billion$ down with it. How did the NRC cause ALL of this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of inadequate work that went unaddressed."
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=5482
Where's the lawsuits or even investigations into the "EEVUL" conspiracy to take down nuclear power? Face it, the NRC did its job after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to make sure those disasters didn't happen again. Many plant designs had to be changed to incorporate the prudent level of safety, causing their costs to skyrocket.
Joe Romm's article quoted ACTUAL HISTORICAL FACTS. Your nuclear power fanboy articles quote rumors, use histrionics and lay down A LOT of accusations with very little evidence. What article is more believable? What article has HARD DATA to support it?
Look, the plants that are already built and the construction losses already absorbed generate power very cheaply and cleanly. It's great, although I wish the NRC would be less buddy-buddy with the industry and regulate them like they're supposed to. However, the 2 reactors going up in South Carolina will be AT LEAST $5B a pop, only because they get to charge ratepayers over $1B before the plants produce 1 kWh(!), while the Vogtle reactors in Georgia will be $6B - $7B per reactor.
We should use this money to maximize energy efficiency FIRST and then build power plants on the basis of cost. We also need to account for the damages of pollution and climate change. If nuclear power comes out on top after all that, I'm fine with building more reactors. But if we cut corners to reduce costs on these plants, it's not worth it.
sault did you write this or was it the imposter?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this13. sauIt
10:27 PM 3/7/12
Humans are a cancerous scourge. Perhaps the Sun might offer some therapy to our suffering Earth and irradiate the human vermin out of existence.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=alien-invasion-a-threat-to-antarcti
Does that sound like me? Come on, give me more credit that that! Maybe I need to provide a signal of the intelligent origin of my transmissions...maybe I could close out my posts with a prime number, kind of like the aliens from Carl Sagan's Contact, to distibguish them from the background noise of the imposter's gibberish!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this19
Once again the halfwit Sault proving his stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNumerous times I've pointed out in response to his stupid citation of a social worker's blathering using cherry picked facts from 40 years ago at Romm's greenie propaganda site that all Candu reactors build in the last two decades were on time on budget at 4 years and less and $2B/Gw or less than 3 cents a kwh. That is a fact not an opinion showing that that there is indeed a learning curve when building nukes.
Once again Sault accepting the bow for the dumbest commenter on Sciam since the inception of its comments section. Is it even possible to believe the man can actually read much less earned the BS and MS in engineering he claims?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When you're looking at a $20B+ bill for 2 reactors (in 1982 dollars, mind you!), there's NO WAY it can be deemed "economical". Sure, the one functioning plant produces power cheaply, just like living in a mansion is cheap once the mortgage is paid off. But JUST TRY getting $.04 / kWh out of a new plant! Ratepayers in South Carolina are on the hook for OVER 1 BILLION $$$$ before they even get ONE kWh out of the Vogtle plant!"
Heres another example of the stupidity of the man. It's 5 reactors not 2 you stupid numbskull - get a kindergarten teacher to help you with a remedial reading class. And the rate payers in S Caro get power at 7 cents a kwh the cheapest power there is that the extraordinarily inefficient by world standards American Private power industry is capable of building. Had the plant been built by efficient public power producers which can borrow at a third the rate of the Pirates the cost be that same 4 cents a kwh.
The moron doesn't get it that the cost is dropping rapidly with learning experience on the new first of kind reactors.
Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-constructors do not get ahead of engineers in nuke plants, it is simply not allowed. If your using 40 year old construction data, then your miscomprehension is understandle.
. It's great, although I wish the NRC would be less buddy-buddy with the industry and regulate them like they're supposed to.
-that's the first time I ever heard that acusation. The nrc is not buddy buddy with these plants. Just because they have a good working relationship that ends up imposing tighter restrictions that both parties usually agree are needed anyway, doesn't mean they are buddy buddy... Look at oil and there regulators and I would again dare you to make the same accusation for nuclear and again intentionally leaving out oil from your statements.
If nuclear power comes out on top after all that, I'm fine with building more reactors. But if we cut corners to reduce costs on these plants, it's not worth it.
- it has been done. Many times. Regardless of who does it. The answer is always the same... Do it yourself to prove otherwise or stop speaking out of ignorance.
Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-constructors do not get ahead of engineers in nuke plants, it is simply not allowed. If your using 40 year old construction data, then your miscomprehension is understandle.
. It's great, although I wish the NRC would be less buddy-buddy with the industry and regulate them like they're supposed to.
-that's the first time I ever heard that acusation. The nrc is not buddy buddy with these plants. Just because they have a good working relationship that ends up imposing tighter restrictions that both parties usually agree are needed anyway, doesn't mean they are buddy buddy... Look at oil and there regulators and I would again dare you to make the same accusation for nuclear and again intentionally leaving out oil from your statements.
If nuclear power comes out on top after all that, I'm fine with building more reactors. But if we cut corners to reduce costs on these plants, it's not worth it.
- it has been done. Many times. Regardless of who does it. The answer is always the same... Do it yourself to prove otherwise or stop speaking out of ignorance.
Carlyle- There was a sault comment (since removed) with similar content on the article "Raze it or raise it" about the Concordia. I hope it was an imposter, since I don't even think sault is that nutty. I suggested on that thread that he might need to double down on his meds, so I guess I'll have to take that back if it turns out to be an imposter. G'day mate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.Just a piece of advice sault, but try to compare in your statements rather than flatting pointing out problems. Instead of saying "nuclear plants always go over budget" try to say "nuclear plants go over budget and fossil and gas plants don't". I beleive that to be a false statement, but at least it will give the conversation a purpose... We are on here to find new solutions and inform of existing solutions, all of which have their advantages and disadvantages. In other words, pointing pit the disadvantages of one technology without stating its advantages or at least comparing them to the counterparts in coal or gas is unproductive, its merely argumentative and provides no path forward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe term for anti human attitudes expressed in that fake post is Misanthropy. There is an interesting article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to be a widespread view held by the Greens. Fortunately most of its adherents are much less likely to breed.
You know, it seems to me that, if they were true believers, they would off themselves and be done with it. There truly are some very sick people in the world. Sault may be a nut job, but I am glad to hear he isn't that nutty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell,, let's go slay a few warmists (figuratively speaking).
Dont make up names for people, colbertist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA bit cryptic for this old fellow but this is interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2050975,00.html
The Colbertist and Jacobin traditions of centralized state control still deter France from accepting the globalized free-market economy
Your geology is confused. Geothermal heat is due to radioactive elements in earth's interior whether it's "hot rocks" or volcanic vents or magma. Magma is just molten rocks underground. When magma is near solid rocks, the solid rock becomes your "hot rock" because heat is conducted to it from the magma. When underground fissure reaches the surface, it becomes a volcanic vent and magma may flow out of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand your statement "heat takes very long time to accumulate." The magma is already hot. If your hot rock is not hot enough, the magma is far away from it.
Your hot rock technology is called Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS). There is one or two in commercial operation but it is largely experimental. I'm talking about conventional geothermal fields.
But you still don't mention the expensive heavy water plant these reactors require or the refurbishments many of these plants have required. You are the one who is cherry-picking irrelevant data points from heavily-subidized Chinese construction that cuts safety corners and hides costs as a matter of national pride. Google is your friend when conducting research:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ccnr.org/exports_3.html
"The Cordoba deal was not just complicated by inflation and underpricing - defective boilers costing $15 million were also supplied by Babcock & Wilcox Canada. [271] Repairs delayed the project for over a year.
The sale of the Cordoba reactor was also controversial because bribes were paid to secure the contract. As part of the deal, AECL and Italimpianti agreed to split an "agent fee", which was used as a bribe. In April 1974, AECL President Lorne Gray approved the deposit of $2.4 million in a Swiss bank account. [272] An Argentinean investigation in 1985 revealed that José Ber Galbard, then Argentine Minister of Economic Affairs, was the recipient of the $2.4 million, plus another $1.1 million in May 1974, and an additional $300,000 two years later. [273]"
"The Indian reactor was part of an aid program organized under the Colombo Plan Administration. The total cost of the reactor was about $17 million, of which the Canadian government provided $9.5 million as foreign aid under the Colombo Plan. [274] The reactor was known as CIRUS (Canada-India-Reactor-United States). The reactor went critical in July 1960, and became infamous as the source of plutonium used by India to manufacture the nuclear bomb it exploded in May 1974."
Here's another good link written by a supporter of nuclear energy tyhat backs up Joe Romm's numbers:
http://www.reactorscanada.com/?p=14
Hopefully, if the NRC does its job, builders will not get ahead of designers like they did in the past. This would actually help the nuclear industry save on building expenses, so they should welcome proper regulation. However, the NRC has weakened safety standards to keep as many reactors running as possible:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pjstar.com/free/x1781765020/AP-study-U-S-nuclear-regulators-weaken-safety-rules
"Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.
Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed - up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.
Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes - all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident."
There are no volcanic thermal vent areas in continental Australia & that is the area I have been referring to. The geothermal energy in the hot rocks has practically nothing to do with magma which is at least 75 kilometres deep, with a very slow thermal conduction rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that, currently, the nuclear industry is in a state of change. What you are talking about in relation to the current effort to lossen regulations is not what you think, but I know what you are talking. That articles was misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is that the existing regulations go above and beyond any reasonable attempt to design the system to be as safe as possible, and people are trying to reduce the unnessary costs. Traditionally all you could do to bypass the regulations was to request exceptions to the NRC rules, but usually that process costs more than just bending over backwards, so it's really rarely done (maybe 30-100 times for a 30 year old plant). And its not like they ask "hey can we just skip this requirement"... you always have to do compensating measures and huge studies are done to ensure public safety is unaffected.
Now, the DOE seems to be a bit more pronuclear under Obama, so they are currently trying to remove SOME of the unnecessary regulations that have been enacted because of nothing more than the oil and coal companies paying off politicians to make a competing technology less appealing... Lets get one thing clear, a nuclear plant could be built for 1/10 the cost of a current plant, with exactly the same systems and design... its just that the paperwork necessary to satisfy the NRC is so overburdensome, it makes the cost skyrocket.
But you know, I'm all for truely overengineered systems. I beleive this country needs to stop building disposal products, rather products that last hundreds if not thousands of years... but I don't think it is fair to impose this requirement on nukes and not on everyone else, especially when the death toll from nuclear is below that of getting struck by lighting, and the death tool of fossil fuels is above that of cigarettes.
Another thing to consider is that the tech of these reactors is changing with each new plant, implying regulation changes are needed. The process that recently was completed for the AP1000 is a good example.. the emergency systems in this plant are a lot different and more INHERENTLY safe... They first designed the plant to existing regulations. Then a lot of people with AP1000s started having concerns because the inherent safety features truely protect inherently, but they can also make the plant un-restartable if activated... the requirements were so stringent that the features could have activated unnecessary destroying the plant. After many years and studies and much money, the regulations were changed. I agree the changes are good.
Lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Examples abound. When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed - up to 20 times the original limit."
-The original amount allowed to leak from any line or instrument associated with radioactive constituents was zero. 20x0 is still zero.
-Now, if your talking about plant bathroom plumbing features, lol, it was originally darn close to zero... because of the overburdensome regulations... and probably still is even with a 20 fold increase... I do think I remember thank change being issued (I have to read every change to every regulation for my work) and I do recall that it was for plumbing fixtures.... How about comparing that to fossil now? I was at one fossil plant that, because the regulations were so lose and corrupted, the plant wasn't allowed to release toxic sludge from the waste treatment plant... but they were allowed to let the same waste trickly into the stream sirectly from the plant.. thats because the requirements for waste treatment facilities are tight than that of a fossil plant... because of fossils corrupting influence.
"When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards."
-That has got to be a lie, I would have heard about it... unless thats from 50 years ago. Also, that simply doesnt happen... if problems are spotted they are corrected in nuke plants... period!!! every employee has the responsibility and is required by law to report these kind of things under Corrective Action. And just because a test is "easier" does not mean it isn't safer... remember how far technology has come the last ten years.
"corroded metals and rusty underground pipes - all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP's yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident."
-Really? All of them? Every single abandon pipe? even the city water line? Really, every single one? Hell, I guess the "could" in that statement allows anything to be possible... hence the manipulation of the article.
"Yet despite the many problems linked to aging, not a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years"
-Actually, that is a blatant lie. Every corrective action issued by the NRC (such as those from fukishima) requires plant review and mods... even nuke plants out in Utah are required to plan for a tsunami now.
That article is a lie.
You're building a strawman argument here by referencing city water pipes. It is either an overly emotional reaction to the proof I'm providing or you're trying to change the subject. Either provide concrete proof that the AP study was flawed or concede that these old plants have problems. Blind assertions that "this just doesn't happen" cannot stand up to outside proof if you hope to be taken seriously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould you please provide proof that a nuclear power plant could be built for 1/10 the cost it is currently? The reason why I bring up the lax enforcement and moving the goalposts by the NRC is that it TOTALLY undercuts the hypothesis that the high cost of reactor construction is due to burdensome NRC regulations. If they constantly coddle the industry at the expense of everybody's safety, how are they over-burdening nuclear reactors with too many regulations?
4 AP1000s are under construction currently. They are coming in at around $5 - $6 per Watt. This is higher than some energy sources, but not extremely high. I hope the construction effort goes smoothly since ratepayers in South Carolina are on the hook for over $1B in fees before the reactors produce even 1 kWh. I also hope the "friendly" relationship between the NRC and the industry doesn't endanger the safety of people in the region. If the plants are built safely without excessive cost and schedule growth, then I think this technology will work well in the region. Nuclear will probably continue to generate %10 - %20 of our electricity and we will need several new plants a decade just to barely keep up with the reactor retirements in the pipeline.
It's not true that magma is only found 75 km deep. Magma can go up to the surface, it's called lava. I think the one in Australia is EGS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHot rock in geothermal fields is due to heat from nearby magma. The thermal gradient of earth's crust is 30C per km. Without magma heat, you have to drill below 10 km to get 300C temp. Geothermal wells are typically 3 to 4 km deep but temp. can go over 300C.
Actually it's good to hear Sault with his claimed MSc and BSc in engineering has finally got some help learning to use Google.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cost of heavy water in a Candu nuke plant is included in the $2B/Gw figure and is miniscule in any case.
Gee if Chinese costs are so subsidized where are all those Chinese airliners and auto's we should be seeing. It they have no safety standards why did they stop all new nuke construction after Fuku and have decided to resume with only Gen III and IV product. Is there any information Sault spews that isn't made up in his fevered imagination.
A few million in bribes and faulty eqmt in a mult billion dollar project is an issue? Is Sault really that stupid?
The India nuke weapon project has nothing to do with modern nuke tech. It is impossible to figure out why the half wit would bother bringing it up.
Nowhere is Sault's stupidity more apparent than his quote of link to a Canadian nuke blog from 4 years ago detailing first of kind issues with new nukes. It actually puts paid to Romm's nonsense. Obviously Sault didn't or more likely can't read it.
Actually new US nukes are coming in at around $4B/Gw for first of kind reactors less than 2 cents a kwh when financed by public power. Learn to do simple arithmetic before you spew.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestinghouse predicts that cost will drop in half with factory module production.
Speaking of simple arithmetic the refurb contract for the Argentine Candu is $500M 25 years after service. Using simple arithmetic that would add close to nothing to original cost of the plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCapturing and storing CO2 is both cheap and simple. Plants absorb CO2. Pyrolyse them, which converts them into hydrogen and charcoal. Store the hydrogen in inverted floating tanks and use it to generate electricity when wind or solar is not producing. Grind up the charcoal and incorporate it into soil where it will remain as a fertiliser for thousands of years. Is this a dream? No! It is being applied right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee Eprida, BTG-BTL, Ensyn or Agilyx on Pyrolysis.
As it is, plants do not absorb enough CO2 to offset man-made emissions. Pyrolysis is energy inefficient. It requires large amount of heat energy input. Hydrogen gas requires large volume making it hard to store and transport. Compressing it consumes energy and produces heat loss. Solving all these problems is a dream come true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat now why don't you cost it all out for us and tell how much fertile land would be required to remove say 2% of atmosphere CO2 annually.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSalt, I just wanted to say that the article you referenced was nonsensical. It didn't even provide a source or author for this "paper" that the entire article is written about. Being that I have never heard of a single one of these issues and that I am well informed, it does seem like fiction to me. Besides, your argument is that nuclear plants go over budget often (again, I don't know what the heck you are comparing since we haven't built one in 40 years). In the same argument, your claiming the designs are flawed and that nuclear and the NRC are buddy buddy. Yee of little faith, if projects go over budget and are still flawed, the only explanation is either incompetence on the part of the engineers or corruption on the part of the managers. There is no other alternative and certainly, the underlying principle of nuclear energy shouldn't be faulted for this, as I do believe you are asserting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, the US has a number of partially completed plants all over the country, left over from the 80s debacle. These plants have been scavenged to death for spare parts for other plants... since the recent attempt to enter a nuclear renaissance, a lot of companies have been studying how to finish these plants.. What we are learning is that is proving to be futile. It cost more to finish a plant that was halted 30 years ago than it does to just build a new one (look at Bellefonte Nuclear Plant and Watts Bar Nuclear Plant). So, in that regard, in trying to make 30 year old scavenged plants run for the first time, yes, it has gone over budget. But again, this is the fault of human folly, and has nothing to do with the underlying technology... other countries are doing just fine.
Regarding the 1/10th cost without regulations statement I made, I'm more than happy to admit I pulled that out of my ass, lol.. But it is a firmly held belief and is still a conservative estimate. For example, I just design a nuclear control panel, a non-critical part of the plant really. The design took 80 hours to complete, but the paperwork ended up taking 3 months. i.e. it’s just based on personal experience.
Yeah, I still don't understand how you can think nuclear plants and the NRC are buddy buddy... I'm usually very good at understanding other viewpoints.
Eco Steve- what your missing is that the millions of gallons of fossil fuels we use each day were created using your stated process, but that this energy was stored over geological timescales, then exploited by man in less than 200 years. So we are taking something that took about 2 billion years to accumulate and burning most of it in less than 200 years; then in your same process, you’re trying to re-accumulate 2 billion years of planetary carbon storage and re-store it by the same plant absorption, which took 2 billion years originally… but rather than giving the plants 2 billion years, you’re expecting them to keep up with man (about 200 years if we are lucky and stop growing in population)… all while man has already cut most of the natural forests on the planet to the point of irreparability. Most of our forests are seriously hurting from acid rain, desertification, logging, man’s presence (New York and LA were once paradises of nature to name but a few examples), etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, the following isn’t my field but I’ll explain it as I understand the sequence of events. When earth first formed, they say the atmosphere was 70% CO2. After about a billion years or so of plant life, that number dropped significantly because plant life spread and evolved. Once the O2 content was higher and CO2 levels were diminished, the animal kingdom began to evolve. Another billion years later, plants and animals had reached the usual ecological equilibrium that life processes necessitate. And it remained that way until the industrial revolution, barring the mass extinction events. We have more carbon in our atmosphere now than any recorded time in the past 2 billion years, barring the mass extinction events. We’ve double CO2 in less than 100 years, which should be proof enough that plant life cannot keep up. So, in effect, we are devolving the planet. The real fear is that a positive feedback effect will develop and that will be lights out for mother earth… we’d be lucky to end up like Mars if that happens.
"I didn't realize there was an anti-fracking industry... What does this supposed industry produce?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMovies and other propaganda, activist groups and their membership subscriptions and associated activities, T-shirts, posters, the list goes on and on ...
"Second, calling an environmentalist a zombie doesn't do a thing to support your arguement, it merely puts you on par with Rush Limblah-blah."
I did not call an environmentalist a zombie, you can read what I wrote and see that for yourself.
"this is why they are experimenting prior to fracking the entire planet... do you see the difference?"
The entire planet is not underlain with opportunities for geothermal fracking of this type, and THAT is the difference ... you don't seem to recognize or acknowledge that in your sentence here.
"not chemicals to essential disolve and break rock"
This says: "I, gunslingor, do not understand what fracking is or how it works. Yet I feel free to criticize that which I do not understand."
"Actually, learn what a luddite is before you call people one.. luddite is a derogatory term used to describe people who refuse to progress with technology... i.e. anyone who supports the obsolete fossil fuel."
Leaders of the eco-communalist, pro-"renewables" and anti-hydrocarbon movements have, in fact, been keynote speakers at Neo-Luddite conventions and otherwise involved in the Neo-Luddite movement. For instance, see this account of the "Second Luddite Congress" :
"Just before we broke for the evening, author Bill McKibben urged us all to go back to our hotel rooms and hang a cover over the television."
http://hilobrow.com/2011/11/29/beardless-in-barnesville/
---------------------
"they're simply against all hydrocarbon production no matter what,"
-true
--------------------
I appreciate your honesty on that, most anti-frackers and other neo-luddites won't admit that.
"Movies and other propaganda, activist groups and their membership subscriptions and associated activities, T-shirts, posters, the list goes on and on."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-That is not an industry. T-shirt production is an industry, power production is an industry, walmart is not an industry its a company, green peace is not an industry its an organization... and you should check the tax filing for whatever companies your talking about because most are NOT FOR PROFIT... i.e. not associated with capitalist industries.
"The entire planet is not underlain with opportunities for geothermal fracking of this type, and THAT is the difference ... you don't seem to recognize or acknowledge that in your sentence here."
-true, the same is true for fracking, I was exagerating when I said the entire planet... trust me, geothermal has as much if not far more potential for exploitation than fracking.
"This says: "I, gunslingor, do not understand what fracking is or how it works. Yet I feel free to criticize that which I do not understand.""
-Actually, this says: "I rcsalmon can't use common sense."
-The fracking industry likes to publish the fracking process in such a manor as to claim fracking is a pressurization process...and it actually used to be just that, but not anymore... why do you think we are just now starting to oppose it. I.e. they put existing fractures under high pressure to break and spread the fracture to release more hydrocarbons. Tell me, if the process is entirely based on pressurization, why the hell would they need to use 500 chemicals? I'm dieing to hear your reasoning.
"Leaders of the eco-communalist, pro-"renewables" and anti-hydrocarbon movements have, in fact, been keynote speakers at Neo-Luddite conventions and otherwise involved in the Neo-Luddite movement."
-President Bush attended a news conference in China, it doesn't make him a communist. Your lossing ground in this arguement; someone who is pro wind, solar and geothermal... someone who is pro hybrid and electric vehicles cannot be called a luddite.. these are relatively new technologies, fracking and coal mining are relatively old technologies.
-In all honesty, if anyone were to be called a luddite, it would be those that support the old technology, this is the definition of a luddite in essence... resistance to technological progression... it has nothing to do with resistance to expansion in quantity of existing tech. But you see, it is your side that loves to use the derogatory names... it helps distract from the real issue at hand... but it aint gonna work much longer bud