Climate Solutions BS in Houston by AIChE

Subtitle: Still BS - Bad Science, No Solutions Needed

I attended a lunch presentation by Dr. Tom Rehm, 2019 Chair of STS-AIChE on October 18, 2019 on Climate Solutions, in LaPorte, Texas.   (STS is South Texas Section)

The main points are below in bold font, with my comments in parentheses.  These are based on my notes made at the time, and may not perfectly reflect what was said; any inaccuracies are due to what I believe I heard at the time. 

(Preface:  I believe that Tom Rehm is sincere in his beliefs about catastrophic, imminent global warming caused by CO2, however he has stated in public that even if it is not true, it is prudent to do something to prevent it.  (my paraphrase, probably not his exact words).  I suspect he is also sincere in his belief that nuclear power is the planet's saviour, and that all plastic production must end and rather soon.  It is disconcerting that the STS of AIChE has taken this approach, with those beliefs based on very bad science and not on the facts.  However, the chairmanship is for only one year, and Dr. Rehm will soon hand over the chair - January 1, 2010.  It seems, though, that the incoming Chair has similar views.   That is actually ok, though, since the solutions being advanced are not workable, will have outrageous impacts on all of society, require massive government support, and cannot be implemented in less than 5 decades anyway.  By then, the inevitable global cooling will be advanced and more than evident to everyone. -- End Preface) 

The main points:

UHI, urban heat island effect, is due to aerosols that cooled the air until approximately 1980, then cleaner air caused the cities to warm.  Clean air laws were enacted.  
(That is nice to see the effect of man-made aerosols mentioned, as that is one of the several causes of warmer temperatures that have nothing to do with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  SLB has articles on the non-CO2 causes of warming, see link. )

Population decreased in a few urban areas but temperatures increased, therefore warming is not correlated to population growth. 
(This is an attempt to show that increased temperatures are not related to population growth, however I have asked Tom in the past how does he know the temperature increase in those few locations were not related to drought, El Nino, cleaner air, fewer clouds, more local humidity, and a host of other known causes of warming?   He made no answer then.)

USCRN, United States Climate Reference Network, has more than 100 pristine sites across the US, sites with no urban warming influence for the foreseeable future.   Mentioned Stovepipe Wells, CA (actually in Death Valley), and Alaska.    Showed a slight warming trend for these locations.  
(the misdirection here was to, again, make the point that warming occurs even where population is small.  As before, no mention of non-CO2 causes of warming, El Nino, droughts, etc.) 

Professor Monty Alger of Penn State called Tom to say he was fully behind the Climate Solutions initiative at AIChE.  Alger will be AIChE president for 2020. 
 (see  https://www.che.psu.edu/faculty/alger/ for a bio of Dr. Alger.  The incoming president of national AIChE is equally misguided on the bad science, BS, of man-made global warming.  However, as an academic, it is important for the national AIChE to support and assist the other academics who receive part of their grants and other funding from promoting man-made climate change.  It is obvious that more work for chemical engineers will occur in designing and building the various systems to capture CO2, remove some from the atmosphere.)

Tom said he was instrumental in getting AIChE to change their official stance on Global Warming with the 2019 statement on climate. 
(The previous statement on climate was essentially, "we don't take a position as the science is not settled," with the new, 2019 statement emphatically stating "Scientific analysis finds that non-natural climate change is occurring and has been strongly influenced by human-caused releases of greenhouse gases. . . . Adverse climate change poses threats to all of us, both individually and as a society. These threats fall squarely in the realm of the chemical engineer. . ."  It is certainly dismaying that so many in our society could be so badly fooled by the BS, the bad science.   What the current statement should say is "Some very bad scientific analysis finds that".... the causation should have mentioned the multiple known causes of warmer temperature, none of which are related to increased greenhouse gases.) 

Mentioned Hofmeister’s book “Why We Hate the Oil Companies.”  Former president, Shell Oil. 
(Not much to say here, having not read the book.  I suspect the theme is that oil companies have been hiding very bad facts for decades, have conspired to deceive the public and elected officials, the usual such things.   It is quite instructive that Shell is mentioned, as they are notorious for having lied to the Securities Exchange Commission about the extent of their oil reserves, and were fined for doing that.  Shell would do well in an era where oil is minimized in favor of natural gas consumption.  That appears to be a primary goal of those who espouse climate solutions. )

Said presenter Stephanie Thomas is a geologist.   Matthew Berg won best presentation award for SPTC in Sugar Land, 2019.
(I sat through both Thomas' and Berg's presentations at that conference.  Dr. Thomas is listed as having a PhD in Earth Sciences, not Geology.  Dr. Berg has a PhD in Hydrology.   I wrote on SLB on Dr. Thomas' presentation, see link.    I have not yet written an article on Dr. Berg's presentation, but it can be summarized as "flooding is getting worse, and global warming is the cause."  He claimed, with a straight face, that local temperatures are melting railroad rails.  Then, showed a slide of a distorted rail juncture.  I laughed at that one.)

Wants the world to be CO2-neutral by year 2030, and to do that we must make no more plastics.
(this one is quite incredible; I shook my head in disbelief.  The modern world depends far too much on plastics to stop production.  The disruption, increased costs, increased disease and illness, and increased energy consumption all are insurmountable factors that will make this one never happen.   For just a few examples, how will hospitals and medical practices function without plastic?  What will food packaging be made from, at what cost in product purity and increased discards, if not plastic?  What will sanitation piping be made from?  How will transportation vehicles maintain their current low weights (or mass) that allows excellent fuel economy?  This one is, to use the vernacular, a doozy.)

Renewables cannot do the job; 100 percent renewables is impossible.  Cited Austin, Texas as having grid stability problems at 20 percent renewables on the local grid.   Said that the local grid and amount of renewables is the critical issue.  
(on this minor point, we agree at least in part.  SLB has articles on the 100 Percent Renewables issue, I agree that the world will not likely ever be run entirely by renewables.   Where Rehm is wrong, though, is on the claim that 20 percent renewables causes instability on local grids.  The fact is that many locations in the US have much more than 20 percent renewable power that makes electricity.  The issue is not with the renewables, but with the flexibility of the other generating systems.  )

Mentioned the cost for renewables is prohibitively high, and the low capacity factor, 25 percent for solar and wind combined in Texas is a major obstacle. 
(this is a common talking point by the anti-renewables, pro-nuclear crowd.  The fact is, the renewable sources of wind and solar are very competitive in the areas where the wind is good and the solar energy is strong.  However, the economics of solar panels in high latitudes will continue to be very bad for many decades.  Solar does well, though, in sunny areas (not cloudy) in locations between 30 degrees north and south of the equator.  Wind is the most attractive generating source in many, many areas as thoroughly documented by the US Department of Energy and their annual Wind Technologies Market Reports.)

One solution is nuclear, with new designs as Professor Tsvetkov proposes.  Said nuclear has zero emissions,   New designs will not use water as the moderator.  
(Tsvetkov clarified that zero-emissions view in his earlier 2019 speech to AIChE, it is not true for the entire nuclear cycle.  see link to SLB article on Gen IV nuclear and Tsvetkov's presentation.  Gen IV nuclear plants are unproven, most have not been built, a few prototypes were abandoned as hopeless.  The increased safety and reduced costs claims are not true at all.  Nuclear is never the solution; it costs far too much and is far too dangerous. ) 

Favors a carbon tax as paramount importance. 
(A carbon tax, or tax on companies that produce CO2 in their operations, is favored by one segment and opposed by another.  Those in favor are typically oil and gas companies, the opposition are coal companies.  Burning coal produces much more CO2 per unit of energy released, typically 2 - 3 times as much as does burning natural gas.  So, a carbon tax is a perfect way to run coal companies out of business.  Is it any wonder that oil and gas companies favor that?  They get to sell more natural gas, usually as fuel to utilities.)  

Three steps to carbon neutrality: Mitigation, Adaptation, and Resiliency. 
The points on the slide for this statement included:
-Manufacturing Energy Efficiency - Mitigation
-Electricity Generation /Distribution  - Mitigation
-Transportation - Mitigation
-Urban Energy Efficiency - Mitigation
-Agricultural Practices - Mitigation
-Land Use Practices - Mitigation, Adaptation, Resiliency
-And, governmental policy solutions. 

(He did not discuss these points in detail, except for the next paragraph on Regenerative Agriculture.  My own experience over 40 years of engineering consulting and energy work as an employee in chemical manufacturing shows that none of the above are cost-effective, except for Transportation with electric battery-powered vehicles.  If one favors the Efficient Market Theory, radical changes must make any market more inefficient and thus more costly to operate.  The prospects of increased energy efficiency due to another world energy price shock, like the 1970s had, is virtually zero.  Oil is no longer subject to price increases, and in fact OPEC is in disarray and oil prices are decreasing.  There is a world-wide glut of natural gas, driving its prices down, and coal is on the decline except in a few isolated countries (India, China).  That leaves only a government-mandated carbon tax to force such decreased energy usage.  )

Favors Regenerative Agriculture – soil must increase carbon content to remove CO2 from the air. 
(with farming already a very slim profit endeavor, the costs to include carbon sequestration in soil must be subsidized to prevent bankruptcies.  This may be where the carbon tax comes in; a wealth transfer from CO2 producers to the farmers.  More on Regen Ag will be published shortly on SLB.  For now, it's just another scheme to transfer wealth and run the oil companies out of business.)

Electricity generation options he favors are nuclear and biomass.   Said nuclear has the best safety record of all types when calculated on fatalities per TWh/y produced.   
(I wonder if that includes the entire uranium mining and fuel preparation cycle, plant construction, generation, decommissioning, and spent fuel storage for centuries.  SLB has articles on the dubious safety record of nuclear power plants, see link to "Nuclear Radiation Injures People and Other Living Things,"  and link to "Near Misses on Meltdowns Occur Every 3 Weeks," and link to "US NRC Stops Study of Cancer Risks near Reactors."  As to biomass for power generation, there is too much power needed and not nearly enough biomass to burn.  These facts have been known for decades.  And, it gets worse.  No more biomass is produced each decade, but the power generation needed keeps increasing.)

(Next, Rehm really pushed nuclear, to end the talk) Nuclear is not presently used much due to unjustified public fear.    Said advanced nuclear plants are much safer 
("Unjustified fear" is a buzzword from nuclear proponents.  One must wonder how much fear was justified among the Russians, Europeans, and others when Chernobyl exploded and sent radiation around the planet?  How much fear was justified in Pennsylvania when Three Mile Island melted down and spewed radioactive steam into the skies?  Were the evacuated pregnant women supposed to remain calm, cool, and collected during those horrible few days?  How much fear was justified in Japan during and after the triple reactor meltdowns and explosions at Fukushima?   How much fear is justified among the entire population, now that nuclear plants are being built in third-world countries with earthquakes and other serious threats to the plants' integrity?   How much fear is justified now that cyber-security is a serious threat?  As to advanced nuclear plants being much safer, how could he possibly know?   None have been built except for a few tiny proof-of-concept plants.  SLB has articles on the safety of new nuclear designs, see link to "Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process,"  and link to "High Temperature Gas Reactor Still A Dream" )

Advanced nuclear will recycle existing spent fuel and generate power from the recycled material, reducing toxic radioactive waste by a large amount. 
(Why bother?  Fuel is not the expensive part of running a nuclear plant.  Safety is not improved, either, as a previous article on SLB shows, see link to "Reprocessing Spent Fuel Is Not Safe."  )

Said SMR, small modular reactors, are the answer since they will be very low-cost to build in factories.  
(This is one of the same points made by Tsvetkov in his Gen IV speech to AIChE, and the same rebuttal applies: any cost reduction due to volume production requires millions of units, not hundreds as SMR would have.  Economy of scale overwhelms any production cost reductions.  NB, the wind energy business for WTG (wind turbine generators) has the same issue for blade manufacturing.  The US industry builds and installs approximately 8 GW per year, at an average of 2.4 MW per WTG, thus the average number of WTG installed was 3,333.  Number of blades made was 10,000 for 2018.  Even that 10,000 items does not give low cost, so the industry strives for cost reductions via economy of scale with ever-larger WTG per unit.  Offshore, size went from 2 to 4 to 8 and now 12 MW.   Onshore, size from 1 to 3 and now 5 MW per WTG.  See link to SLB article on SMR and all the many drawbacks, "No Benefits From Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants." )

End of speech.  

In the Q&A portion, I asked this Question:  how much will electricity prices increase if the proposed solutions are implemented?  He admitted it will be a big increase but did not give a number. 

The transition period will require decades, Shell says 50 years, he stated BP and ExxonMobil have similar time frames.  
(how does this square with the earlier statement of carbon-neutral by 2030?  That’s only 11 years away)

Q:  how will SMR reduce costs, when economy of scale is the major factor in nuclear plant costs?  He had no answer for that, either.  

Q:  On USCRN slides that showed a warming, how much of the measured warming was due to CO2 increase, and how much to other factors like cleaner air – he mentioned pollution laws cleaned the air around 1980 and temperatures immediately increased in those locations.   His response was to show a graph purporting to show IR gap in Earth’s radiated energy out to space, with CO2 responsible for the gap.   My rebuttal was, the gap is also exactly where water vapor H2O absorbs, so how do they know it is due to 300 – 400 ppm of CO2, and not due to several percent of water vapor? 

Conclusion

The points made in this speech are typical of the misinformation and Bad Science (BS) of many in the climate alarmism camp.   So much of what they know, just isn't so. (a quote from Ronald Reagan).   The good news is, almost none of this is ever going to happen.  Plastics are here to stay.  Nuclear plants are a dying breed, and the sober review process and high standards at the NRC will prohibit the approval of the Gen IV reactors.   Economics alone will kill off any other reactor designs, such as the NuScale small modular reactor system that is presently undergoing safety review at the NRC.  Low-price wind electricity and natural gas power have doomed nuclear power, which is a very good thing.   Wind energy is a booming business, and is here to stay.  Solar is also booming in those areas of the world, as stated above, not far from the Equator where the sunshine is strong.   The AIChE will likely see the Climate Solutions division, or initiative, whatever it is called, wither away in just a few short years.  

This website will have articles and updates on that, as they occur. 

Roger E. Sowell

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here, here,  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Shell Presentation on Climate and Energy by 2070

Subtitle: Hydrogen and Ammonia - Both Are Disasters

A Vice-president and Chief Scientist-Chemical Engineering, from Shell made a speech on Tuesday evening, October 1, 2019 in Sugar Land, Texas, at which I am glad I attended and took a few notes.   Dr. Joseph Powell, PhD in Chemical Engineering, was the speaker.  The event was the

combined AIChE South Texas Section and Southwest Process Technology Conference dinner meeting at the Marriott Hotel conference center.   

Dr. Powell spoke on the need for changing the world's energy system to a carbon neutral basis to avoid catastrophic climate change.  His proposed solutions covered a range of paths, but most notably using water, or methane, CH4, to create either 1) a hydrogen energy system, or 2) an ammonia, NH3, energy system.   Solar and wind renewable energy systems were to play a big part in the basic energy input, with hydrogen or ammonia as the energy carriers.   The time-frame was a transition period of 50 years, and carbon neutrality achieved by the year 2070.   With a veiled swipe at the Green New Deal proposal, he mentioned that changing the world's huge energy infrastructure could not be done in a short period, but would require several decades.   I agree with that last statement based on my 40 years experience in the industry, the sheer size and scope of the energy infrastructure would require decades to transform. 

The presentation, as he said, was based on the Shell Sky Scenarios developed and published by Shell over the past few decades.  ( see link to Shell Sky Scenarios.)

I cringed when I heard this presentation, and more than once.   This article describes what I believe I heard, and why such things caused me to shake my head in total dismay.   In short, hydrogen is incredibly dangerous and should never be placed in general, widespread use due to the inevitable fires, explosions, and human deaths.   Ammonia is equally toxic.    The economic impact of a radical transition to hydrogen would be catastrophic to 90 percent of the world's population.  

Dr. Powell began with a brief introduction of his experience, with a BS in chemical engineering in 1978, when the US had gasoline shortages such that gasoline sales were allowed only on alternate days.   A car owner could buy gas based on the last digit of the license plate, odd numbers on odd-numbered days, and even numbers on the even-numbered days.  I recall those days vividly, as my BS in chemical engineering was awarded just one year earlier, in 1977.   

Dr. Powell obtained his PhD in chemical engineering a few years later (1984), and worked in various assignments at Shell for the past 30 years.  Part of that appears to be looking far into the future, and evaluating various processes to meet energy demands.  It is instructive, although he made no mention of this, that Shell's energy reserves are natural gas, to a significant extent.   Shell has notably failed to discover significant oil reserves, however.   So, it makes sense that Shell's Sky Scenarios would focus on processes that convert natural gas to usable transportation fuels.   He did mention at one point Shell's gas-to-diesel process plant, PERL, in Qatar.   The PERL plant takes an otherwise worthless natural gas pocket located deep in the Middle East, and produces diesel fuel that can be transported by ship or pipeline.  

Dr. Powell also mentioned that, in 1978, the world's climate scientists sounded the alarm over imminent global cooling.   That, too, is a vivid memory, since the bitterly cold winters of 1977, 1978, and 1979 were at the end of a 35-year cooling trend (since 1945).  (SLB has several articles on the Abilene Effect, and the unprecedented consecutive 3 years  of abnormally cold winters   see link.)  The climate scientists were very wrong then, as almost everyone knows by now.   

One can only wonder why those climate scientists are to be believed now, when they were so spectacularly wrong in 1980 about global cooling and an imminent ice age.  Few of the same scientists are alive today, but the discipline has quite a few people sounding an equally shrill alarm over global warming. 

The final bit of introductory material discussed the opinion polls, which he said showed a large minority (I think 30-40 percent?) believe that climate change is real and is a crisis.  Another minority view (perhaps another 40 percent?) held no position for or against, and a small minority hold the view that there is zero cause for alarm.    He said that the opinion of stakeholders led Shell to develop the future scenarios.    That was not shareholders he mentioned, but stakeholders.   He did not define exactly who he meant by stakeholders. 

As an aside, oil companies such as Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil (collectively known as Big Oil), and the national oil companies from many nations, have been the targets of many organizations for many decades.    I have met many of the Big Oil opponents, and found that they fervently believe in things like the car with a 200 mile-per-gallon carburetor, magic portable batteries that let an affordable car run for 1000 miles on one charge, and recharge in 5 minutes, solar panels that work around the clock, and wind turbines that produce free electricity.   Many of these same people advocate vigorously for nuclear power plants, even the tiny ones that would be buried in a vault in every neighborhood to produce electricity for very near free, just a small metering charge.   To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "It's not that (these people) don't know anything, but what they know just isn't so."

The reality is, yes, some cars obtain 200 miles per gallon.  Much more than that, in fact.  But, they can never be sold in commercial use because they will never meet the automotive safety standards.   Those are highly specialized "cars" with very little weight, tiny engines, very high-pressure or solid tires, and run at slow speed on an incredibly smooth surface.   We now do have batteries that would allow 1000 miles range, but the cost is still very high.  Recharging in a short time is possible, but will be very expensive.   Solar panels of course would not work around the clock, unless they are in orbit.   Wind turbines are getting better, but 3 cents per kWh for the electricity is about the best we have at this time.  

Returning to Dr. Powell's presentation, he described several process paths for a carbon-neutral energy system by the year 2070.  They were, as best I can recall, gas to methanol, gas to hydrogen via carbon black process, water to hydrogen via electrolysis, gas to hydrogen via steam-methane-reforming with CO2 capture, and natural gas to ammonia. 

The hydrogen would be transported to the end user, where cars with fuel cells would fill up and drive away for their normal use.   He mentioned one detailed study that Shell performed, with solar panels in north Texas providing energy to produce hydrogen that would be sent to New York City for use in fuel-cell vehicles.   It was not clear to me if the solar panels would make electricity for water electrolysis (produces hydrogen), or supply electricity for hydrogen production via the carbon black process.   He did mention that excess carbon black could be permanently stored in abandoned coal mines.   As an aside, that does not seem sustainable to me, since there are such a limited number of abandoned coal mines in the world.   If we truly are about to run out of oil (and gas), surely we are equally certain to run out of space in the coal mines.  

The mix of energy providers in year 2070 also seems very implausible, with nuclear power almost quadrupling from today, solar PV providing a bit more than 30 percent of all energy, and wind providing a bit more than 10 percent of all energy.   

Nuclear power is going to shrink, and fall to almost zero within 20 years as it is completely lost in the competitive market, not to mention the growing awareness of the dangers of meltdown disasters.  (Update 10/4/2019:  Shell's proposal would have 1,800 nuclear power plants built between year 2020 and 2070, with one large 1,000 MWe output plant started up every 10 days for the next 50 years.   Clearly, that is never going to happen.  see link for SLB articles on the many insurmountable disadvantages of nuclear power  - end update) 

Solar has a distinct disadvantage compared to wind, because even in the best locations, solar can only produce at approximately 25 percent of the installed capacity.   The Sun's path across the sky dictates this outcome.  However, wind does not care where the Sun is, and wind turbine generators are already producing at an annual rate of 50 percent (some at 60 percent) of nameplate capacity.  The result of this is that any storage system for solar must be at least twice as large, require more capital to install, and have more losses on charging and discharging.  Solar PV will never, ever, win out over wind on a global basis.   

For some illustrative numbers, a 4,000 MW solar power plant that produces at 25 percent of nameplate would produce only 24,000 MWh in a 24 hour period.  But, for the 6 hours per day that it does operate, and using 100 percent output as a simplification, the plant would send one-fourth of the output to the grid (6,000 MWh), and three-fourths (18,000 MWh) to a storage system (presumably batteries).  The storage system would then discharge for 18 hours each day, returning approximately 80 percent of the stored electricity back to the grid.  

Wind turbines that operate at 60 percent of nameplate would have a similar analysis, 1,667 MW at 60 percent gives 24,000 MWh in a 24 hour period.   Only 40 percent need be stored, with 9,600 MWh stored.  

Conclusion

Shell's Sky Scenario is entirely implausible for many reasons, and is extremely unsafe due to the reliance on hydrogen as an energy carrier.  The system is also woefully too costly, with reliance on very expensive nuclear plants, and solar PV systems with twice the storage requirements compared to wind turbine generators.  

There is zero need to reduce any CO2 emissions in any event, since any measured  warming in the past 100 years is almost entirely due to natural forces, increased human population growth, and increased energy consumption.  Natural droughts since 1960, El Nino events since 1960, urban heat effect from more dense cities, increased fuel and electricity per capita, decreased cloud cover due to more sunspots, and cleaner air with fewer aerosols due to air pollution laws, all are responsible for "global warming."  But, CO2 is innocent.  (see link to SLB article on A Skeptic's View of Climate Science - It's BS)

Roger E. Sowell

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here, here,  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant to Close

Subtitle: Another one calls it quits - Losing Money

Three Mile Island nuclear plants,
containment domes as white circles at top right
credit:  NRC

The infamous Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania has one reactor still running.  The other one, the one that melted down after only one year of operation, has been closed with its radioactive fuel core removed.  Now, almost 40 years later, the financial losses are overwhelming, the government refused to provide tax dollars as still more subsidies, and the owners have announced the plant's closure in September, 2019.    (UPDATE:  It closed on Sept 20, 2019.  Cheers for another one closed, forever. )

So much for the nuclear cheerleader mantra that "nuclear plants last for 60 years."  No, they don't.   SLB has a list of the US' closed nuclear plants, see link.   Three Mile Island will join that list if and when it actually closes down, in approximately 10 weeks from today. 

At SLB, the opinion is that many more nuclear reactors in the US will shut down in the next few years, approximately half of the existing fleet, as the electricity market changes for the better, and nuclear plants cannot compete.  The combination of old plants, high operating costs, and tremendous pressure from low-cost wind and natural gas power, makes shutting them down the only practical solution.   However, a few states (notably Ohio) have chosen to give even more subsidies to their nuclear plants to keep them running and the workers employed.    One wonders how much largesse actually exists in the legislature and governor's office, when the plants require many hundreds of million $ invested to remain within the Federal safety regulations.   Who will purchase bonds to fund the investments, when at best the plants will run for only 10 years?

So, what actually happens when a nuclear power plant shuts down?  How does the grid cope?  Quite well, actually.   We have seen this demonstrated time and time again, in California, Nebraska, Massachusetts, and others. 

Many of the remaining power plants each increase their output to cover the load that the nuclear plant formerly supplied.    At night especially, some plants will not reduce output as much as when the nuclear plant was operating.   The grid remains stable, the customers are happy, and a high-cost provider is removed from the generation mix.   This is how regulated capitalism is supposed to work, the most efficient survive, and the least efficient fall by the wayside.  

One last point, about nuclear plants supposedly being zero-carbon sources of power.   No, they aren't, especially when they shut down.  That Three Mile Island plant will soon be a big load on the grid, drawing power 24 hours per day, to keep spent fuel cooled and various other needs.   That power intake is from the grid as a whole, which of course includes coal-fired power and natural gas-fired power.   That is not unique to Three Mile Island, as every closed nuclear plant continues to draw power from the grid in various amounts.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Happy Day - Pilgrim Nuclear Plant Closes Forever

Subtitle: Uneconomic Nuclear Plants Should Close

It is always satisfying to watch predictions one has made come to pass.  I am on record (see link) as stating half of the US nuclear power plants (at least, those still operating) will close in 10 years, with the other half closing in another 10 years.  That works out to roughly 5 reactors per year, on average.   This article is about one that closed just two days ago, the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, Massachusetts. 

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, Plymouth, MA -- photo from NRC

The current quote:  "PLYMOUTH, Mass. (AP) — The Pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plymouth has permanently shut down after 47 years of generating electricity, bring to a close the era of nuclear power in Massachusetts.    The final shutdown occurred at 5:28 p.m. Friday (31 May 2019)."  see news article at this link. 

My prediction from August 4, 2017:  "The essential facts in the US are a great number of nuclear plants will retire; many coal-fired plants will retire, many natural gas plants will be built; and a great number of wind turbine generators will be built.   Within 20 years, almost every one of the 98 nuclear plants in the US will retire.  Half of those will be shut down within 10 years."  (quoting the SLB article  "Offshore Wind Turbine Project – Statoil’s Hywind Scotland; A Positive Viewpoint"   see link)

So, what happened to cause the Pilgrim plant to shut down, nearly 13 years before its operating license expires?  This plant was given the green light by the NRC to extend its operating life beyond the initial 40 years, with a 20 year extension.  Nuclear cheerleaders often claim that nuclear plants run 60 years, yet we have never, ever, seen one operate that long.   The usual circumstances occurred, the same ones that caused other plants to retire early.  Those circumstances are an inability to operate profitably in the modern era with low natural gas prices, and very low renewable (wind especially) electricity.  The news articles are filled with report after report of nuclear plants presenting their bid for future electricity to the grid, and not being competitive.  The reasons, of course, are the high operating costs, even on a cash basis and not including capital charges.   

The nuclear plant owners typically turn to the state governments to plead for yet more subsidies to keep their plants running, and sometimes, those pleas are successful.  And then other times, they fail.  Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant failed to obtain taxpayer subsidies, and it is now closed.  

So, what alternatives to nuclear plant owners have?  Can they invest a few billion to reduce operating costs, perhaps increase power output and produce more income from the same asset?  Those have been tried, sometimes with success and at least one notable and dismal fiasco: the SONGS (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station near San Diego, CA). The fiasco involved lies to the NRC about the new steam generators (four of them), when the design was very different but the owner lied to the NRC that the design had only minor changes and no need for the costly and lengthy review and approval process.  (The new steam generators, vertical U-tube heat exchangers, had more tubes, tubes with smaller diameters, and a different vibration suppression design).    

The problem Pilgrim had, as I see it, is too few years remaining in which to recover the investment from any effort to increase revenues.  

The same scenario is playing out at the aging, inefficient, high-cost nuclear plants in the US.  Plant after plant is crying to the government for more subsidies (on top of the numerous other subsidies already in place).   As governments see that shutting a nuclear plant has very little impact, if any, on the local economy, the pleas for bailouts will be refused.  

As an aside, no one granted the oil refineries any extensions, no subsidies, no fiscal help at all when nearly half the refineries shut down in the 1980s.  There were thousands and thousands of jobs at stake there, too, just like the nuclear cheerleaders are claiming today as their big reason for more subsidies.   The refineries shut down, nearly 150 of them across the country.  There was a temporary difficulty for the workers, the engineers, and management, but we all survived.   That's the way it is supposed to work in a market economy.  The more efficient weed out the lesser.  

Nuclear plants have had their day in the sunshine.   The sunset is here for many, many of them.  

It is indeed, a  happy day. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Gen IV Nuclear Plants - AIChE Presentation

Subtitle: Gen IV Designs Have Too Many Serious Flaws

This article follows the previous article (see link) with my recollections and comments on the nuclear power presentation at the AIChE dinner meeting on 4-11-2019 in Houston, Texas.

The presenter, Dr. Pavel V. Tsvetkov, seemed quite knowledgeable and sincere in his views.  To his credit, he mentioned a few negative points for nuclear energy in general, and specific points to some of the designs he presented.  He did, however, say some things that were either unrealistic, or entirely too optimistic in my view.   And, that is ok; I believe we need optimists in the world, as long as their views are filtered and judged through a sober process that adequately considers safety, costs, and better alternatives. 

The questions in my previous article remained unanswered for the most part, as they were not asked.  A few others in attendance did ask a similar question on the safety, and spent fuel, and plant size or capacity.  But, nothing on subsidies, capacity factor in operation, construction costs, operating costs, or decommissioning costs. 

A few of the presenter's points made me pause and hope that no one ever, ever builds one of these things.  More on that below. 

In no particular order, then, here are some points I recall that seemed true about nuclear energy's drawbacks. 

- The entire fission nuclear process is carbon-free only in the operating reactor portion.  All the other aspects are performed now, and likely in the future, with a large degree of fossil fuel use.   Those other aspects include, but are probably not limited to, uranium mining, uranium ore processing and concentration, uranium fuel preparation and delivery, constructing a plant, decommissioning a plant, and spent fuel cooling, handling and monitoring. 

- Nuclear reactors have some ways to produce electricity other than boiling water or heating a gas, but the engineering challenges are simply too great to spend time on these.  

-  Nuclear plants can be built to follow the grid load, but the costs are greater.  This is a crucial point, because already high costs are increased even more as the plant reduces output to follow the load.  

Next, here are some points the presenter made that are absolutely false, in my experience. 

- Existing nuclear plants will run for 100 years.   No, they won't.  These plants shut down almost always before the 40th year of operation.  The ones that keep running are crying desperately for more government subsidies because they are losing money. 

-  SMR, or small modular reactors of various designs, will be very low-cost.  He stated they will be built in factories just like cars are built.   That is certainly not going to happen, as the need for electrical plants simply is not on the same scale as automobile sales.   Automobile sales are in the millions of units per year.  Power plant sales are in the few hundreds of plants per year.    No economy of production volume will change those economics.   For example, one can calculate that for a 40 year life, replacing only the natural gas and coal-fired plants in the US requires approximately 60 new plants each year.  If these were small enough, say 50 MWe output as envisioned for small modular reactors, we can increase that to 300 plants per year.   That is nowhere close to the millions per year required to achieve economy of scale through increased production volume.  Instead, the economics work against one, as smaller units cost much more per quantity of output. 

- Molten salt reactors, such as molten fluoride with dissolved thorium or uranium, are intrinsically safe.  No, they are not.  He showed a conceptual flow diagram that made me cringe.  The molten, 900 degree C radioactive bath is pumped from the reactor vessel through a heat exchanger, where a heat transfer fluid is heated.   That heat transfer fluid is then pumped through a second heat exchanger, where water is boiled to make steam for a turbine.  The heat transfer fluid is then pumped back around in a loop to the first heat exchanger.   The cringe-worthy aspect is the fact that heat exchangers eventually leak.  There will be heat exchanger fluid flow either into the radioactive molten salt, or the other way round with the molten salt injected into the heat exchanger fluid.  One picks one, or the other by choice of operating pressures in the heat exchanger.  Either way, that is some serious bad news when (not IF) the leaks occur.    As proof, one need only look at the heat exchanger leaks that occur periodically in the existing nuclear reactor fleet; and note soberly that such a leak was what caused the San Onofre Generating Station (SONGS) to shut down permanently.   That was "only" a radioactive steam leak.  

Another serious drawback is the pumping of that radioactive, molten fluoride salt.   Pumps leak, and having that material leak onto the concrete floor is more than a bit troublesome.  There will also be valves in the lines, and valves also leak.  Who wants radioactive, molten fluoride salt dripping from a valve, making a puddle to step in or over?

- Gen IV nuclear plants can be used to produce fresh water via desalination.   No, they won't.  The economics will not allow such a thing.  Even if desalination is ever necessary, solar thermal plants have a huge economic advantage over the incredibly expensive and dangerous nuclear plants. 

- Molten metal Gen IV nuclear plants will operate at high temperatures, therefore high thermal cycle efficiencies, and will be safe.   No, the same issues exist as described above with pumping molten salts: it is extremely difficult and dangerous to pump hot, molten sodium, and the same for hot, molten lead.   Sodium reacts explosively with contact with humid air, and lead fumes cause all manner of brain damage in humans. 

- Gen IV reactors will be ideal for supplying process heat in refineries and petrochemical plants, also chemical plants.   No, they won't.  The inherent dangers in such process plants simply will not be improved by the presence of a nuclear plant, whether for electricity or process heat production.  Instead, having a nuclear plant on the premises will make emergency responses much, much more hazardous.   Unfortunately, refineries and other process plants sometimes have operating upsets, fires, and explosions that require emergency response personnel to enter and handle the problems.   Who wants to speculate on the incredible situation where the plant is on fire, but the nuclear plant is so close to the fire that a radiation release is not only possible, but very likely.   No, thanks.  


There may be more issues to write about and discuss, but here ends the article for today. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas

copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here

Climate Change................here  and here

Fresh Water......................here

Engineering......................here  and here

Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Musings at 300,000 Views

The internal, Google-based page-view counter for SLB just rolled over 300,000 pageviews on February 10, 2019.  It's just a round number, but it is a milestone of sorts.   

In the past year or so, the topics that appear on SLB have had a few items of interest.  Nuclear power plants are still closing in the US, while 2 of the 4 under construction were abandoned, never to be finished.  The remaining 2 reactors, at Vogtle plant in Georgia, are limping along with years-long delays and ever-escalating costs to construct.  The latest (but certainly not the final ) cost estimate is US $25 Billion, which is approximately $11,000 to $12,000 per kW of nameplate.   As is the usual case, the ratepayers in Georgia get stuck with outrageously costly electricity.   Perhaps one day the people of Georgia will say Enough.   For SLB article on the very high costs to build nuclear plants, see link.

Again in nuclear power, the US government has agreed in principle to construct the first small, modular reactor as designed by NuScale.  see link The reactor is not yet approved for license and construction, but one presumes that will occur in due course.  (see link to article on SLB re the NuScale SMR under review at NRC) At only 50 MWe output, the tiny reactor cannot possibly hope to be economic, but then rational people knew that all along. 

And, the news just today states that infamous TMI, or Three Mile Island nuclear plant (the one that did not melt down) is in jeopardy of shutting down permanently due to losing money.  The appeals for yet more subsidies are under consideration in the Pennsylvania state government chambers.  see link   The argument this time appears to be that nuclear should be given special consideration like wind, solar, and true renewables have, since a nuclear reactor produces no carbon dioxide, CO2, when it operates.   The money-losing nuclear plants cannot compete in the market, and they make that misleading appeal.  The fact is, the nuclear plants are off-line approximately 10 percent of the time, but require massive inflows of electricity during that off-line period to keep cooling pumps running and other parts of the plant operating.  The electricity consumed is from the grid, which produces CO2 according to the mix of coal and natural gas fired plants.   So, nuclear is not carbon-free power; it is actually limited carbon power. 

So much for nuclear.  As stated often on SLB, the technology is too costly and too deadly to be built.    

In the climate change arena, specifically the man-made global warming aspect, we see more of the same from the official IPCC and the false-alarmists.   The rational climate analysts, though, see through the various shenanigans that produce the alarmist conclusions; the constant data adjustments, the making up data, the ignoring data that refutes the warming trend, the inclusion of blatantly wrong data, the splicing together of horribly wrong past data with modern satellite data, and of course many others.  

It is fascinating to witness the gyrations by climate false-alarmists during this very cold and snowy winter of 2018-19, with polar vortex incursions blamed on CO2-warmed air invading the Arctic and displacing the cold air into Canada and the US.   Interesting idea, but one must pause and wonder exactly how the brutally cold winters of 1977-79 (and others) happened, since CO2 was so much lower back then.   SLB has articles on those three winters, with the label Abilene Effect.  As usual, the false-alarmists have no credible explanation for the cold winters then, nor now.  And that was just in the late 1970s.  (see Figure 3 at this link, "Cold Winters Created Global Warming.")

As snow piles up in the Sierra Nevada mountains in early 2019, one considers the record snows of 1952 and 1937 (more than 60 feet of snow fell in each of those years, per Central Sierra Snow Laboratory at University of California, Berkeley).   How, exactly, did those monster storms off the Pacific bring all that moisture into the mountains, when CO2 was even less back then than it was in the late 1970s?    We see the California snow pack, measured in early February this year, is above the long-term average for that date.   Of course, the false-alarmists say that global warming does not mean no snow.   In fact, they say that global warming is supposed to make more snow.   

Another warning from the false-alarmists is the sea surface temperature that is (supposedly) increasing as CO2 beams its warming rays down onto the ocean.  Meanwhile, it is a solid fact that hurricanes cool surface waters, and there are fewer and fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic.   What the false-alarmists fail to discuss is why there is a dearth of hurricanes, when their theory on CO2-induced global warming requires there be more hurricanes, and more intense hurricanes.   As to sea-surface temperatures increasing, one must wonder how the waters immediately along the US coast, from Brownsville around Florida and up the eastern seaboard, are below the long-term average temperature.   Perhaps the explanation will be that CO2 gets a bit confused right at the coastline, and refuses to shine its warming rays down on that bit of water.    Here's an explanation that just makes one laugh (they used this on why lakes are not warming as predicted): the trees on the shoreline shaded the lake.  Maybe the trees on the ocean shore are also shading the coastal waters.   Those will be some mighty big trees. 

And now, a brief plug for a colleague, a PE in chemical engineering, highly experienced and even more highly respected by his associates, colleagues, and clients around the world, Mr. Arthur Krugler.   Art published (in late 2018) his book Polar Bears in the Hot Tub, with his always-interesting views on why the Arctic ice recently declined.  Ocean currents that are heated from below by a long chain of undersea volcanoes, stimulated by earthquake activity, had a lot to do with it.    The book is available on Amazon and other outlets.   

In the political arena, President Trump created a storm of outrage among the false-alarmists with his 2019 State Of The Union speech, by completely ignoring climate change.  The implied message was, We have numerous, serious issues to address, and climate change is simply not one of them.   He addressed many other topics, including peace in Afghanistan, the opioid crisis, health care, illegal immigration and the wall along the US southern border, the booming economy, and socialism has zero place in the USA. 

So much for climate change and false-alarmism, although there is much, much more to be said.  Now to renewable energy. 

In renewable energy and electrical grids, wind turbines are still the stars and growing ever-more economic.  We see ocean-based wind farms with 8 MW turbines, and Vestas announced a 9.5 MW machine.  GE is still working on their double-digit machine, a 12 MW turbine.  These, along with floating-spar mooring systems, are bringing down the cost of electricity from offshore wind.  A project was announced in Asia that will have a profit at 10 cents (US) per kWh sold.   

The Scotland-based Hywind project with floating-spar turbines (6 MW each) has exceeded performance expectations, just as predicted here on SLB.   The floating-spar technology with larger turbines is fully expected to yield sales prices of 4 to 6 cents per kWh within 4 or 5 years.  

An interesting development occurred this past year, for on-shore wind installations.  The US Department of Energy issued a general call for help in solving the transportation problem in that industry.  see link  At present, the roads and railroads are a limit to transporting large turbine blades to the wind farms.  Turbines of 2.5 to 3 MW are the maximum that can be installed until a way is found to transport larger turbine blades.   Perhaps the ideas will result in workable solutions, I suspect the answer will be in blades transported in segments, then assembled on-site.  Perhaps the blade manufacturers can consult with the US Navy about their folding-wing aircraft.   Maybe it is time to rebuild the interstate highway system and design for larger items to be transported.   It is certainly possible to put crossings under the interstate, and eliminate the low-clearance bridges.   It may be cheaper just to make the crossing bridges into draw-bridges.  

Then, there is the high-level hilarity from the rookie Democrat proposal for a Green New Deal, which would eliminate fossil fuel use in the US by 2030, only 11 years away.   That one has much to discuss, and I anticipate an article or two on that on SLB.  

Finally, a word about all-electric vehicles and the profound transformation underway in the global energy industry.   Battery technology has improved and is fully expected to continue to improve, so that pure EV (electric vehicles) are being produced and planned world-wide.  OPEC is in disarray over this, and oil companies now mention Peak Oil Demand in their speeches and on their websites.   It won't be long before the following slogan will be patriotic, 

"Drive An EV, And 

OPEC Can Pound Sand" ™

With gratitude to all who visit SLB and read and leave a comment, 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here