LET'S DIG DITCHES WITH SPOONS - THE ZYCHER WAY

Statement of Dr. Benjamin Zycher Visiting Scholar American Enterprise Institute

Committee on Senate Finance Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources and Infrastructure. 
March 27, 2012
No analytic difference between inefficient ditch digging and inefficient power generation

Start at 34:08 and watch a measured destruction of the economics of renewables. In particular, Dr Zycher's simplification of a main plank of the disciples of renewable energy - the creation of 'Green Jobs' - is soul destroying to me (as an avowed opponent of renewables) because it magnifies the idiocy of Governments worldwide, who are driven by 'experts' from Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the likes.

At 36:57, - "The Green Jobs Rationale borders on the preposterous". To paraphrase:  Governments should outlaw the use of heavy equipment for digging ditches and mandate the use of an army of workers using spoons...."There is no analytic difference between inefficient ditch digging and inefficient power generation as tools with which to pursue increased employment"

Expensive Wind Power: is little more than a convenient fairy tale

Professor Gordon Hughes
Dr Gordon Hughes is a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh where he teaches courses in the Economics of Natural Resources and Public Economics.

The key problems with current policies for wind power are simple. They require a huge commitment of investment resources to a technology that is not very green, in the sense of saving a lot of CO2, but which is certainly very expensive and inflexible. Markets have to be rigged in order to persuade investors to fund the investment that is required. The economic cost of fixing  markets in this way, especially if there is a possibility of making mistakes, is very high. Before proceeding along this path, any Government ought to be very sure that (a) the economic and environmental benefits outweigh the substantial costs incurred, and (b) the risks of pre-empting better options that  may emerge in future have been minimised.

 

In reality, neither of these conditions is close to being satisfied. To misquote another aphorism, unless the current Government scales back its commitment to wind power very substantially, its policy will be worse than a mistake,
it will be a blunder.

10. Final Thoughts

In a speech to a group of prominent business leaders the previous Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change gave an extended soliloquy on his vision of greener growth for the UK – Huhne (2011). Nothing could better illustrate the gap between do-it-yourself economics and the realities highlighted by concrete economic analysis as presented in this paper. In Mr. Huhne’s world all investment that comes under the category of greener growth is a good thing, irrespective of whether it generates adequate returns on capital that has to be diverted from other uses or whether it reduces emissions of CO2 in practice.

The casual assumption that expenditures on green technology represent an efficient and economic use of scarce resources is little more than a convenient fairy tale for troubled times. Reality is rather different. Some green technologies will pay off – yielding satisfactory returns to both investors and users – but many will not. Ample experience tells us that any returns are likely to be smaller and take much longer to be earned than the enthusiastic projections produced by enthusiasts and lobbyists.

Energy [R]evolution - A POLICY TO RUIN THE PLANET 54 TIMES MORE QUICKLY!

Members of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth now is the time to use your common sense. Stop listening to the siren calls of your 'experts'. You know that the Capacity Factor (CF) of wind turbines is pathetic and if you look up at one of these things, common sense should tell you that a great deal of resources and energy has been used to make and erect them. For every kWh of electricity you get out, tonnes of steel, concrete and neodimium has been used and the planet desecrated that much more.

See:  http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/how-green-is-wind-turbine-in-my-valley.html

You know there is an insurmountable issue of intermittency. Common sense should again tell you what the 'solutions' from your 'experts' mean:  More desecration - back-up CCGTs (more desecration) or batteries (more desecration) or pumped storage (more desecration) or inter-regional/international smart grids (more desecration).

   
 Please - use your common sense and come over to breeder reactors (the small modular versions). They can provide all of the energy requirements of every individual on the planet (at developed world standards) for as long as Homo.s can exist on Planet Earth.




You just have to decide if you want the 'Liquid Metal - Uranium' one or the 'Molten Salt - Thorium' one.

I know which I prefer - do you need any help making your mind up?

NUCLEAR POWER IS RENEWABLE - MATHEMATICS AND LOGIC PROVE IT!

Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source  (Am. J. Phys. 51(1), Jan. 1983)

Bernard L. Cohen

Department of Physics. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

     Since energy sources derived from the sun are called “renewable,” that adjective apparently means that they will be available in undiminished quantity at present costs for as long as the current relationship between the sun and Earth persists, about 5 billion years. It is the purpose of this note to show that breeder reactors using nuclear fission fulfil this definition of a renewable energy source, and in fact can supply all the world’s energy needs at present costs for that time period......

.....We thus conclude that all the world’s energy requirements for the remaining 5 [billion] yr of existence of life on Earth could be provided by breeder reactors without the cost of electricity rising by as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This is consistent with the definition of a “renewable” energy source in the sense in which that  term is generally used.

     Nuclear fusion has been advertised as a method for “burning the seas.” We see that nuclear fission with breeder reactors is an alternative method for “burning the seas,” and it has the considerable advantage that the technology for doing it is in hand.

So, 29 years ago the calculations were done, to prove we had enough fertile isotopes of thorium and uranium to last 'forever'. All we need is a breeder reactor to deliver it safely and cheaply and everyone on Earth can have a decent standard of living, from a source which does not pollute the environment and degrade the chemistry of the atmosphere any further. 

  Foot-soldier-members of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth:For goodness sake,use your common sense! You must stop listening to the deluded siren calls of your 'experts' and their  Energy [R]evolution wish-list.

If you get behind LFTRs you have the experience and wherewithall to make it happen, and make it happen quickly! 

 

Breeder Reactors it is - But will it be 'Fast (Metal Cooled - Uranium) Breeders' OR 'Thermal (Molten Salt - Thorium) Breeders' ?

Dr James Mahaffey

'Atomic Awakenings' http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6600498-atomic-awakening  outlines nuclear energy's discovery and applications throughout history. Mahaffey's brilliant and accessible book is essential to understanding the astounding phenomenon of nuclear power in an age where renewable energy and climate change have become the defining concerns of the twenty-first century.

This is the way it will be:  My purpose is not to sell nuclear power, because there is no longer a reason to sell it. Nuclear power, waiting quietly in its coma, has now become inevitable. That is, the ultimate need for nuclear power has finally caught up with its mad dash to develop. Whether you like it or not, the industrial world no longer has a choice. The age of burning coal and gasoline is over as atmospheric chemistry and general environmental pollution have approached states of crisis and hydrocarbons are becoming too expensive to burn. We need wind power, solar power, geothermal and hydro and anything else we can think of, but the base power must be constant running, high output nuclear stations. The real expansion of nuclear power is just awakening.....                              

 

   
Tom Blees is the author of Prescription for the Planet - The Painless Remedy for Our Energy & Environmental Crises. Tom is also the president of the Science Council for Global Initiatives  http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/

The Science Council for Global Initiatives is a growing international group of scientists, politicians, activists and other concerned men and women working together to articulate cohesive, efficient policies for solving the most serious problems ever faced by mankind. Resource wars, globe-girdling pollution, the threat of serious climate disruption; these challenges demand immediate international cooperation and inspiration on an unprecedented level. The world-class members of SCGI are creating the foundations for political and social structures that will enable us to meet the formidable challenges of the 21st century.

--------------------------//-----------------------------

Two super-cool, undemonstrative, tell-it-as-it-is, professional communicators who know that energy from breeder reactors is sustainable - from the inexhaustible fuel sources of uranium and thorium, until the end of (Homo.s) time. And, within 2 or 3 decades, Breeder Reactors will be the main source of base-load energy for all of humankind.

But why do they only mention Fast Breeders, without even a nod or a wink towards Thermal Breeders which are so much more efficient and require only a fraction of the amount of fuel and therefore size of vessels, pumps, valves, etc..

But that's just a minor benefit of Thermal Breeders over Fast Breeders. There's a catalogue of other reasons why Fast Breeders should be second in the queue:

Safety

Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBRs), or any other acronym that fits, use highly reactive sodium as a coolant, exchanging heat with pressurised water. Sodium explodes on contact with water (and burns on contact with air) - so the system has a potent 'driver' to expel radiotoxic substances upwards and out into the environment.

Molten Salt Breeder Reactors (MSBRs) are thermal breeders, operating at atmospheric pressure, with both reactor and coolant salts of low chemical reactivity; there is no high pressure or chemically reactive ‘driver’ to expel radiotoxic substances into the environment. A reactor vessel leak or breach would result in the molten salt glug-glug-glugging down the side of the vessel into non-critically configured drain tanks, designed to remove decay heat.

Affordability

LMFBRs operate at atmospheric pressure on the primary circuit side, but they do need large pressure vessels on the secondary side for steam generation - although nothing like the gigantic proportions of Light Water Reactor  (LWR) steam generators. Materials are competitively priced stainless steel, but plant and equipment is larger than equivalent MSBRs. Also, a separate and expensive, on-site fuel reprocessing plant is preferable to importing already processed fuel.

MSBRs also operate at atmospheric pressure, but the heat exchanger with the gas turbine fluid and coolant salt circuit (within the heat exchanger only) has to withstand high pressure. Also, the material to handle the molten fluoride salts is sophisticated Hastelloy N  which is expensive. However, because the plant is smaller and the fuel reprocessing 'built-in', it is likely that MSBRs come under the price of equivalent LMFBRs.

Efficiency

LMFBRs, at relatively low temperature, use steam turbine power, which might reach 38% efficiency of conversion of heat to electricity.

MSBRs use gas turbines at 48% efficiency - this means you get 25% more electricity for your (fuel cost) money.

Although both forms of breeders are roughly equivalent in respect of most other attributes, MSBRs have a substantial efficiency advantage over LMFBRs, when it comes to the development of a 'Hydrogen Economy'.

Hydrogen Economy

LMFBRs, because of their low-temperature operation, would have to produce electricity first, before that could be used to get to the temperatures required to produce hydrogen. A guesstimate might be 50% efficiency. 

MSBRs can output 750 °C process heat, which is capable of producing hydrogen directly and the efficiency is maximised.

The importance of a Hydrogen Economy cannot be overemphasised. See: 'Benefits of LFTRs.

Note:  LFTRs are the configuration of MSBR most suited to electricity generation. Other configurations of MSBRs may be better suited to 'burning' nuclear 'waste' and the plutonium stockpiles.



New Take on Impacts of Low Dose Radiation

Mina Bissell is

Berkeley Lab’s

“Distinguished Scientist”

Risks from low levels of radiation are generally assessed with the Linear No Threshold (LNT) theory. This theory states that the risks of cancer are in direct proportion to the amount of exposure, even for very small exposures. This methodology of risk assessment is supported by a series of reports called the BEIR reports: Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR I through BEIR VII....

Researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), through a combination of time-lapse live imaging and mathematical modelling of a special line of human breast cells, have found evidence to suggest that for low dose levels of ionizing radiation, cancer risks may not be directly proportional to dose. This contradicts the standard model for predicting biological damage from ionizing radiation – the linear-no-threshold hypothesis or LNT – which holds that risk is directly proportional to dose at all levels of irradiation.

The research is analogous to pointing out that:  BEIR says that if 100 aspirins taken at once is lethal, and 100 men each take one aspirin apiece--one of those men is going to die. That would be a linear response to low dosage aspirin consumption.

Now where does this leave the Japanese Government's decision to the evacuation of the entire population of an exclusion zone, when:  Fourteen elderly Japanese died during the evacuation, as a direct result of their bus trips, problems with IVs and hydration, etc..

More to the point, was their decision driven by the outlandish rantings of anti-nuclear campaigners - if so, both groups should acknowledge direct responsibility for those deaths.

GREENPEACE - LIKE IT OR NOT, UK 'NEW NUCLEAR' WILL HAPPEN!

But Sir David King does disagree with you:  
"..... power outages could occur as early as 2017 as old nuclear, oil and coal-fired power stations are closed because not enough is being done to replace them. The school's study shows Britain can’t meet its goal of cutting carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050 without ramping up nuclear power and electrifying both transport and heating....."

What else did he say?  "".....switching all generation to renewables would be 
“enormously expensive” because everything 
would need to be backed up by equivalent 
gas-fired capacity for when the wind doesn't blow. The power grid could support a maximum of 20 percent large-scale wind power alongside smaller turbines, solar panels and geothermal heat pumps fitted to homes....""
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-
15/u-k-renewable-energy-push-may-prevent-
electricity-crisis.html 


Every UK member of Greenpeace must leave the sanctuary of their Disney World existence, forget the delusion of their Energy [R]evolution policy and come into the real world, where nuclear really does do the job of keeping the lights on - all of the time!


But each and every one of you can help to make the Government sit up and take notice of LFTR development. If LFTRs provide the UK's future nuclear capacity, they will allay all your fears about safety and long term storage of waste.


You can either sit on the sidelines chanting your mantras as new PWR nuclear power stations get built, or join the LFTR movement and get action on a safer and greener alternative. See the above links to the "38 DEGREES" and "E-PETITION" campaigns.