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  

Renewable Energy Better Than All Else - Unsubsidized

Subtitle: Lazard Study Shows Wind is Lowest Cost for Generation

One of the ongoing debates is what is the best technology, or mix of technologies, to provide safe, reliable, affordable, and low-polluting electric power for public consumption.  SLB has quite a few articles on this to date. see link   SLB holds the view that renewable energy systems, especially wind turbines and solar power systems, were not economically viable for many years, but that has changed for the better in the past few years due to ongoing federal and state subsidies.    In addition, SLB holds the view that commercial nuclear power plants are far too expensive to build and operate, plus those that presently are operating should be shut down because they are 1) unsafe, and 2) not economic.  Also, SLB holds the view that coal-fired power plants in the US should be forced to curb their emissions to meet the Clean Air Act requirements, and compete in the power market if they are able.   The stark reality for coal plants is they cannot compete after making the

Figure 1.  Lazard LCOE v 11.0 - page 2showing Wind as lowest, Nuclear as 4X Wind(Wind, Nuclear, and Coal circled in blue)

expenditures for pollution abatement equipment.   SLB also holds the view that natural gas-fired power plants that use the combined-cycle technology, CCGT, should be installed to the maximum extent possible due to the low capital cost, low operating cost, effective load-following ability, and almost zero pollution.    These views are based on the best data available, both recent past and current.   Despite being data and evidence-based, these views provoke howls of outrage from many commenters on other blogs.  

In the midst of all this, the Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, has proposed that the US provide yet another subsidy for nuclear plants and coal plants.   The basis for that new subsidy is the supposed benefit to electric power grids from steady, almost continuous baseload power that the nuclear plants and (some) coal plants provide.   That topic will be the basis for another post, however.   It should be noted that a grid does not need nuclear power for baseload, indeed, several states and many grids have no nuclear plants operating.   Also, coal-fired power plants are not required for baseload for a stable grid.   

Today's article is to highlight and discuss a recent study by Lazard, (worldwide financial advisory and asset management services firm), titled "Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 11.0" see link 

LCOE Calculation

Lazard has (on p. 17) a brief description of how it calculates the LCOE, Levelized Cost of Energy:  for each technology, using installed capital costs, operating costs, financing via debt and equity, Lazard solves for the $/MWh that provides the required Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the equity investors.    This is a sound methodology, one that SLB has also used in such calculations.   Note that the Lazard LCOE is a leveraged financing calculation, for example in Wind power, 60 percent debt is allowed at 8 percent per year (presumably long-term bonds), and 40 percent equity is at 12 percent (presumably Preferred Stock with a 12 percent annual return).   This is a slightly more complex calculation than others use, where the $/MWh LCOE is determined with a simple 10 percent return on installed costs, plus all operating costs.   (But, note that the Lazard cost of capital for Wind is then 9.6 percent (0.6 x 8 + 0.4 x 12 = 9.6), almost the same compared to the simpler case of 10 percent). 

The primary results, as shown in Figure 1 above, show that Wind LCOE, unsubsidized, is $30/MWh, (3 cents per kWh).   The vertical red line shows that literally nothing, renewable or conventional technologies, has a lower LCOE.  

A note on the unsubsidized aspect of the Lazard study.   First, the results for nuclear power plants are entirely suspect because nuclear plants would not be built at all, absent a huge number of subsidies.  Several articles on SLB discuss the many and quite substantial subsidies that nuclear plants enjoy, summarized here as very limited liability from a meltdown and radiation-induced harm, construction loan guarantees, direct Federal payments for all power produced at 2.3 cents per kWh (for the first 10 years of operation), safety regulations relaxed to allow plants to continue operating, protection from almost all lawsuits during construction, laws changed to allow builders to charge existing customers for construction funds, state funding in the millions per year to "preserve jobs" and keep uneconomic nuclear plants operating, and Federal payments for spent fuel disposal and handling. 

It is also not quite clear on the coal plant LCOE, if these include or exclude pollution abatement equipment - not including Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS.    If no pollution abatement costs are included, then the LCOE is too low because that is a form of federal subsidy.  

Finally, a note on the low-end costs of nuclear power: Lazard shows installed costs of $6,500 per kW (low end), and $11,800 at the high end (study, p. 11).   Certainly in the US, no nuclear plant could be built for under $10,000 per kW, so the low end figure is suspect.  Part of the trouble is the time for construction, 69 months (study, p. 20).   New nuclear plants in the US and Europe require at least double that, more than 10 years.  

Wind LCOE

The Lazard study has some questionable assumptions that produce the LCOE for Wind, at $30/MWh for the low end.   Per p. 19, that is based on on-shore, installed cost of $1200 per kW, and 55 percent annual capacity factor.   DoE annual reports thus far have nothing quite so optimistic, instead having $1600 per kW, and 38 percent capacity factor in the best areas.  It is not clear to me exactly how Lazard obtained the low-end data for Wind.   

Conclusion

The results for wind, onshore and with 2016 results, should be approximately $43 per MWh (since projects are operating today with that total sales price).   For US policy makers, it must be noted that the nuclear LCOE of $112 per MWh, low-end per Lazard v. 11.0, is essentially unattainable. 

Still, it is nice to see such a study.  The general impression that wind is cheaper, and nuclear more expensive, is correct.   Other studies have also arrived at the same conclusions. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 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  

On the Evolution of Blogging

Subtitle: A Blog is Much Like a Social Club

Some things have become more and more clear to me recently, with the articles that are written, and the comments on various blogs.   This short article goes into what I see happening there and the good and bad ramifications. 

Start with a social club, a private club.  These organizations almost always are very much homogeneous.  People join who are of the same opinions, same social status, same economic level, same skin color, even the same religion in many cases.   It is rare to find much diversity in one of those clubs.  

How are blogs like that?  The topic for a given blog, or even a few topics if it is broadly based, has a certain point of view.   Some, especially in the climate science field, allow no contrary views to those of the blog owner or owners.   The comments also, where commenting is allowed, may have a common theme.  A dissenting viewpoint in comments is typically hooted at, or shouted down - as that is done in writing, anyway.   The dissenter is typically vilified, called various derogatory names, insulted, and sometimes libeled.  

I have watched this happen, in person, on a couple of blogs.   I make no claim to having participated in many blogs, as my time is limited.  I am limited to reading and commenting on just three, beside writing my own.  Those are, in no particular order, Climate Etc., Jo Nova, and Watts Up With That.   Still, although a small data set, there are common elements.  

I read each one, or at least that was my original intention, to keep up with developments in the climate science area.  I wanted to learn things.   Eventually, I gained enough confidence to leave a comment.   However, my commenting was typically to disagree with what was in the article, or with what a commenter had written.   It appears that most of us have a body of knowledge that we feel is true. When someone asserts an opposing position to be true, the choice then is ours whether to respond or not.   Most of the time, I did not.  But occasionally, I would respond to disagree.  I would give my facts and reasons.  I tried to be very courteous, not engaging in the vilification described above.   

I was then that  I found myself the target of the vilification and the rest of it. 

This is true, in my experience, on Jo Nova, where some know-it-all writes prolifically about the wonders of coal-fired power plants.  He claims some engineering background, but the evidence of that escapes me.  I pointed out a few times his wrong statements, for which I was roundly berated as a know-nothing.   After a few rounds of that, I confess I left that site and don't go back.    And that, the leaving the site, is very much what happens in a social club when a non-conformist enters the club.  The existing members will make the non-conformist so uncomfortable that he chooses to leave.   More on that in a bit. 

My experience at Climate Etc. was not much better, although I don't really read or comment there much.  There are a couple of regulars on that site that really blistered me with scathing comments when I pointed out their false statements.   The sad thing is, Dr. Curry allows both of those characters to post guest posts on her blog.   Well, that is her choice.    Again, I chose to stop reading and commenting on that blog, too.  

And then, there is Watts Up With That.   I have made more than a dozen guest posts on that blog, and left hundreds if not thousands of comments since early in 2009.   Anthony Watts, the blog owner and principal author of posts, has graciously allowed me space to write those guest posts.  At one point, Anthony also asked me to take a day off work and drive down to Anaheim to attend a lecture given by infamous Michael Mann, PhD.  see link I was also asked to ask Dr. Mann a question during the question and answer period.   I was happy to do all that, and I did.  The results were several guest posts on WUWT, and many hundreds of comments by dozens of people.  Some were positive, and many were negative, too.   

But, my point is that, over the years, almost all of the commenters that I enjoyed reading and exchanging views with have quit commenting there.  There is an entire new cast of characters.  And, they almost all have the same viewpoint: catastrophic man-made global warming is over-hyped (with that I agree), renewable energy is bad (with that I mostly disagree), and nuclear energy is good (with that I completely disagree).   

What is more of a dismay, though, is the writings as guest posts by three prolific, but usually very wrong writers.  I probably should not name them, but their identities are fairly easy to determine.  They all have one thing in common, though, they agree strongly with the three WUWT positions just mentioned: climate science, renewable energy, and nuclear energy.  

I wrote an article here on SLB about the one-sided statements and articles on WUWT, pertaining to wind energy projects.  see link   As background, several years ago, I had written and Anthony posted an article on the benefits from vertical axis wind turbines. see link  But, that was the only one out of approximately 50 articles on wind that were positive.   It seems that WUWT goes out of the way to scour the news for examples of wind turbine failures.  These are highlighted, for example with a photo of a helicopter in the air, from which a man is spraying some liquid (a de-icing fluid, it appears) onto the frozen, ice-covered blades of a wind turbine.   Another that comes to mind is a photo of smoke billowing from a wind turbine that caught fire.  

More recently, the economic troubles in Australia that supposedly stem from too many wind turbines have received much ink at WUWT.  

So, I sometimes join in the comments and give various facts, such as how no grids are destabilized in the US due to solar or wind energy at grid-scale.  And, how the economics of both solar and wind energy have dramatically improved in the past decade.  Also, how there are yet more technical improvements to be had that will improve the annual output and reduce installation costs.    I also comment, as appropriate, on the nuclear power articles.  

And the vilification, berating, belittling, and sometimes libeling begins again.  At one time, I swore off ever reading or commenting again at WUWT.    I discussed that with Anthony, too.  He encouraged me to stick with it, as he himself has had much worse thrown his way.  On that, he is absolutely correct.   He has been the target of some truly vicious, illegal, and sickening behavior.   

So, how is this like a social club?  And, how does that impact anything?   I'll use the WUWT as the example.  Years ago, as I said, I was a frequent reader and commenter there.  I found lots of kind, friendly commenters, and a few guest authors, that responded to my comments.   However, those commenters are gone, from what I can see.    A few old-timers are still there, but they are not the kind people.  These are the opposite. 

Why would the commenters, and the guest authors, become so very homogeneous?  There are various terms for it in the social science literature, group-think, echo-chamber both come to mind.   More fundamentally, it is simply very difficult to accept that one's personal bias is not correct.   It is very hard to give up long-cherished ideas, to find that what one thought was true was actually false.    A famous quote is along those lines, I'm not sure who said this.  "When new facts present themselves, I change my mind.  What do you do, Sir?"  I like that quote, because I like to discover the facts, and form my opinions based on the facts.  And, it is perfectly ok with me when the facts change.   I don't mind.  

As examples, it was a fact a few decades ago that wind turbines were very expensive to construct and had low output.  Those were the facts.   I would not have wanted huge amounts of electricity input to a grid with those wind turbines.  However, being an engineer and seeing what those designers were up to, I knew that they could do several things to improve the designs.  And, they did.  As the improvements came, so did the cost reductions and efficiency improvements.  As I knew they would.  Their track record now is almost 8 years in a row of reduced costs and improved output.   And the improvement is impressive.  The break-even economics have plunged from 30 cents per kWh 8 years ago, to 4.3 cents per kWh today for wind turbines.  The cost to install has dropped by a factor of at least 6.  Recent figures in the US have installed costs at $1600 per kW of nameplate capacity.  That compares to almost $10,000 per kW just 8 years ago.   The facts have changed, so my opinion has also changed.  I also happen to know (and write about this) that intermittent wind energy on a grid does not harm the grid, nor does it increase prices to the customer.  There are abundant, actual real-life data to support that.  

The same, or rather the opposite, is true for nuclear power.  That industry, over the years, has had an increase in installed costs per kW of nameplate capacity.   In the late 1980s, the plants were being built for $3 or sometimes $5 billion each, for 1000 MWe (electrical output).  Today, they cost $10,000 to $12,000 per kW to build.   Even allowing for inflation, that does not show any cost reductions over time.    

As many readers of SLB know, I have also written a series containing 30 articles on The Truth About Nuclear Power.  see link  (those articles have now had more than 27,000 views to date).    I have made comments at WUWT with references to those articles, as appropriate.  What is puzzling to me is the absolute refusal by the commenters there to scrutinize and dig into the nuclear power data and the issues surrounding it, with the same intensity they devote to climate science data, climate models, and climate predictions.   Instead, the derision, the name-calling, and other insults are flung my way.  

It is more than puzzling, it is astounding to me, that so many people who comment at WUWT have such misplaced faith in the nuclear engineers (they are not making better power plants), and so little (or zero) faith in the renewable power engineers.  This, even though the facts are quite clear that renewable energy trends are better and better.  

In conclusion, it appears to me, based on personal experience, that the blogs have devolved into echo-chambers, just like a social club.  A dissenting viewpoint is met with insults and worse.  Those who at one time contributed greatly to the comments have left.   As have I.  

And that is a thing to invoke dismay.  How can those who are very wrong ever know they are wrong, if there is no one to say so to them?  To put it in literature terms, where will we find the "boy who could see no clothes, and said so?"

Ah, well.  Being blissfully wrong, and not wanting to know it, is probably something that will never change.  As for me, there are plenty of other interesting and rewarding things to do in this life.  Onward, and upward.   SLB will continue with articles on climate science, nuclear power, fresh water, renewable energy, engineering, Free Speech, and a few others.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 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  

President Trump - Six New Energy Initiatives in 2017

Subtitle:  Reflections on the Prudence of the Energy Initiatives

A few days ago, June 29, 2017, President Donald Trump made a speech at the US Department of Energy during which he announced six new energy initiatives for the US.   I have written, and made speeches (1), on many of these same issues, and take this space today to write some thoughts on these.   I hope that Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and President Trump take the time to read these.  Perhaps some of SLB readers can forward this to them.     

In summary, nuclear power can never be economic; US coal reserves cannot be mined profitably for more than 20 years at the present prices; US oil is far too valuable as a strategic resource for military use and must be kept ready for a prolonged world war; natural gas is abundant and therefore low-priced, however exporting LNG will increase the domestic price and erase our competitive advantage.   Each of these is discussed in more detail below. 

The six items listed by the President are:
1.  Nuclear Energy revival and expansion
2.  Coal power plants - financing overseas plants and selling coal to them
3.  Oil pipeline to Mexico for oil sales
4.  LNG sales to Republic of South Korea
5.  LNG exports from Louisiana
6.  Oil and Gas offshore leasing in new areas formerly off-limits

The speech's text includes the following:

[President Trump:]  "Today, I am proudly announcing six brand-new initiatives to propel this new era of American energy dominance.  First, we will begin to revive and expand our nuclear energy sector -- which I’m so happy about -- which produces clean, renewable and emissions-free energy.  A complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy will help us find new ways to revitalize this crucial energy resource.  And I know you're very excited about that, Rick.

"Second, the Department of the Treasury will address barriers to the financing of highly efficient, overseas coal energy plants.  Ukraine already tells us they need millions and millions of metric tons right now.  There are many other places that need it, too.  And we want to sell it to them, and to everyone else all over the globe who need it.

"Third, my administration has just approved the construction of a new petroleum pipeline to Mexico, which will further boost American energy exports, and that will go right under the wall, right?  It’s going under, right?  (Laughter and applause.)  Have it go down a little deeper in that one section.  You know, a little like this.  Right under the wall.

"Fourth, just today, a major U.S. company, Sempra Energy, signed an agreement to begin negotiations for the sale of more American natural gas to South Korea.  And, as you know, the leaders of South Korea are coming to the White House today, and we've got a lot of discussion to do.  But we will also be talking about them buying energy from the United States of America, and I’m sure they’ll like to do it.  They need it.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 

"Fifth, the United States Department of Energy is announcing today that it will approve two long-term applications to export additional natural gas from the Lake Charles LNG terminal in Louisiana.  It’s going to be a big deal.  It’s a great announcement.  

"Finally, in order to unlock more energy from the 94 percent of offshore land closed to development, under the previous administration, so much of our land was closed to development.  We're opening it up, the right areas, but we're opening it up -- we’re creating a new offshore oil and gas leasing program.  America will be allowed to access the vast energy wealth located right off our shores.  And this is all just the beginning -- believe me. 
The golden era of American energy is now underway." 

Sowell Commentary

1.  Nuclear Energy revival and expansion
The President said, ". . .we will begin to revive and expand our nuclear energy sector -- which I’m so happy about -- which produces clean, renewable and emissions-free energy.  A complete review of U.S. nuclear energy policy will help us find new ways to revitalize this crucial energy resource."

The nuclear power industry is beyond help.  The very nature of nuclear power from fission required certain design decisions - and still requires them - to attempt to produce power that is sufficiently safe, fairly reliable, and at sufficiently low cost to compete with other sources of electricity.   The nuclear engineers are well aware of the issues, and took appropriate steps in every phase of the design and regulatory process to do their very best to meet the goals stated above.  Yet, even with the best engineers and helpful regulators, they failed.  I have written long and often on the various merits and failings of nuclear power, in particular the 30 articles on SLB of The Truth About Nuclear Power (2).   There are many other articles besides the TANP series, also (3).   

The essence has two things:  first, that nuclear power by fission of uranium has inherent physical constraints that do not permit high efficiency (4).  Because of this, the plants must produce and circulate a greater amount of steam to the turbine, which causes the generating side of the plant to be much larger and therefore more expensive.   The second is the hazardous nature of uranium fission that requires multiple layers of expensive safety systems.  Nuclear plants require three layers of containment: the fuel rod contains the uranium pellets, the reactor contains the fuel rods, and the air-tight containment building contains the reactor.   There are, therefore, three physical barriers to uranium and the high-energy radiation particles emitted.  The three are the thin metal wall of the fuel rod, the thick alloy steel wall of the reactor, and the very thick concrete and steel containment building.  In addition to the three barriers, a meltdown has such serious consequences that multiple reactor cooling systems are required by regulations.   Finally, the consequences of radiation release from an enemy missile or large aircraft impact are very great.  To minimize such risk, all new designs in the US must have hardened designs for the reactor, the spent fuel storage area, and the plant's cooling systems.  All of the facts above force the cost to build a nuclear plant ever upward, to the point that a nuclear power plant, output for output, costs ten times as much as a modern natural-gas fired power plant.   (facts: a 1000 MW gas-fired power plant in Lordstown, Ohio costs $1000 per kW output, while the nuclear plants under construction in Georgia at the Vogtle site now cost at least $10,000 per kW.  The Vogtle nuclear plants are more nearly $12,000 per kW)

No future reactor designs, and there are a great many that are or were under consideration, have any hope of reducing the cost to construct.   This is true in other countries also, in particular Finland, France, and UK where the latest and most modern designs are under construction.   It is said that China is building nuclear plants for far less cost, and that may be true given their much lower wages and materials costs.  It is not likely that the US would import Chinese workers and pay them Chinese wages, though.   Such alternative designs are described in detail on SLB, including Small Modular Reactors, Molten Salt Thorium Reactors, High-Temperature Gas Reactors, Fusion by magnetic pinch, and Fusion by laser implosion (5) (6) (7) (8). 


2.  Coal power plants - financing overseas plants and selling coal to them
". . .barriers to the financing of highly efficient, overseas coal energy plants.  Ukraine already tells us they need millions and millions of metric tons right now.  There are many other places that need it, too.  And we want to sell it to them. . . " 

Coal is also a frequent topic on SLB (9).  The essential fact is that coal-fired power plants in the US cannot compete in the electricity markets with the coal coming from the mines at present prices.   Coal mining is just about as efficient and low-cost as it is likely ever to be.  Existing coal-fired plants must spend $millions to install pollution abatement equipment.  New, modern coal-fired plants cannot obtain a reasonable return on investment and are therefore not being built at all.   There is a great amount of coal still in the ground, but no mining company can produce it at a profit.  The choices are then to subsidize coal production or subsidize the pollution abatement portion of new coal-fired plants in the US, or both.  

What President Trump is apparently advocating is selling US coal at higher prices to overseas customers.   That is indeed curious, since the US would then be competing with coal from Australia.  However, there are countries that do indeed need coal.  India is one, China another, and Ukraine is mentioned by the President.   However, the US coal mines have already produced the low-cost coal.  What remains must be sold at a higher price to be profitable.   If the overseas coal consumers are willing to pay that higher price, and the cost of shipping, then good for them.   The end result, though, is that coal-fired power plants in the US will continue to close as they cannot justify the capital investment to meet pollution standards.   The clean air act exemption for grandfathered coal fired power plants has ended (10). 


3.  Oil pipeline to Mexico for oil sales
". . .has just approved the construction of a new petroleum pipeline to Mexico, . . ."

What a reversal of fortunes.  It was not many years ago that Mexico exported oil to the US.   It makes temporary sense, though, to export oil from Texas oil fields to Mexico.  SLB has an article on the huge Wolfcamp oil field in West Texas. (11) 

The greater question, though, is the wisdom of exporting oil at all from the US, to any country.  As written before on SLB, the US and our allies won World War II in large part because of the oil reserves in the US.   Not that much has changed in 70 years, even though there are a few nuclear-powered ships and submarines in our Navy.  The other ships depend on oil, and all the Air Force jets depend on jet fuel from oil.  The same is true for the Army's vehicles and tanks, they need diesel fuel from oil.    It would indeed be a sad day for the US to be in a world war, have oil supplies from other countries cut off, and wonder where all that oil went that at one time was safely under the surface in the US.   "Well, we exported it to Mexico.   It seemed like a good idea, at the time."

Mr. President, please ask any of your senior military advisors about how they would proceed to win a prolonged war, without any domestic oil.  Their answers should be quite sobering.  The fact is, no nation can win any war without oil.   Ask the military historians how long Japan could have held out with their oil almost depleted.   The same for Germany.   Ask the historians and military strategists why control of oil is such a crucial element in winning a war. 


4.  LNG sales to Republic of South Korea
5.  LNG exports from Louisiana
These two are both about liquefied natural gas, LNG, so will be combined for the comments. 
". . .sale of more American natural gas to South Korea, [and] export additional natural gas from the Lake Charles LNG terminal in Louisiana."

The ramifications of selling US-produced LNG to overseas customers should be carefully examined.  World prices for LNG are many times higher than US prices, on a dollar per Btu basis.   LNG exporters hope to sell into those markets and reap much higher rewards.  But, the impact on domestic natural gas prices will be an increase.   Electricity from gas-fired power plants must necessarily increase in price as the gas price increases.   Commercial users of natural gas, and residential uses also will be adversely impacted.    It is not a Make America Great Again moment to enrich the few at the expense of the many.    

It is also a solid fact that American process plants have been, and are still being built to process gas liquids (ethane and propane) from the abundant natural gas production in the US.  Those process plants depend on having relatively low-priced feedstocks.  That pricing advantage would evaporate as natural gas prices increase with LNG sales overseas. 

6.  Oil and Gas offshore leasing in  areas formerly off-limits
". . . from the 94 percent of offshore land closed to development, under the previous administration, so much of our land was closed to development.  We're opening it up. . . "

Mr. President, as I wrote above, it is a serious error to produce and sell off the oil from US lands.   Every President since Truman has known the fact of oil and winning a war.  That is why the offshore areas are closed to exploration and drilling.   There is, of course, the extensive drilling in the Western Gulf of Mexico offshore Louisiana and Texas.   And, a bit of the California coast was available for drilling for a while.   We know there is oil offshore in the off-limits areas, and we have a rough idea how much oil is there.  We don't need that oil.  
But, to be fair, there may be larger, geo-political implications. (12) Consider if the US did produce enough oil to drive down the world price of oil, down to half of the present price or even lower.   Russia, a major oil exporter, would have much less revenue.  Middle East countries would also suffer.   Perhaps that is the goal.  


I hope that the need for sufficient oil for a future world war is given careful consideration, Mr. President.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Foot Notes and links:

(1) see link  Speech on Peak Oil and US Energy Policy, R. Sowell

(2) see link   Truth About Nuclear Power - Part 30; Conclusion

(3) see link  Vogtle Nuclear Plant Costs Increase

(4) see link  Cannot Simply Turn Off a Nuclear Power Plant

(5) see link   No Benefits from Smaller Modular Nuclear Plants

 (6) see link   Thorium MSR No Better Than Uranium Process

 (7)  see link   High Temperature Gas Nuclear Reactor Still A Dream

 (8) see link    Power From Nuclear Fusion; Magnetic Pinch and Laser Inertia

 (9) see link    Various Articles on Coal on SLB

 (10) see link   Coal, Wind, And US Energy;  Coal Falters as Wind Excels

 (11) see link  President Trump and the Future of American Oil

 (12)  see link  The Grand Game - Oil in Disarray; Precision Directional Drilling Causes Oil Price Decrease

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  

Solar Output Exceeds 100,000 MWh per Day in 2017

Subtitle:  Another Renewable Record in California - Zero Problems on Grid

A rather common opinion is that solar power on a grid causes a great many problems, and should therefore never be supported nor considered as a source of electricity.   The facts, though, give the lie to such an opinion.   Here in sunny Southern California, the grid-scale solar generation is approximately 9,300 MW from the photo-voltaic (PV) systems, plus another 500 to 600 MW from solar thermal plants.  These combined during the longest days of this year, late June, to provide just over 100,000 MWh of electricity into the grid.  see photos. 

Fig 1 Renewable Power Output, from CAISO website

The combined electricity from solar, for June 28, 2017, was 101,850 MWh.  For the previous day, June 27, the output was 103,095 MWh. 

That may just be a record for solar electricity production in any state in the US.  
To put that in perspective, the California grid demand was approximately 30,000 MW at the noon hour. Solar provided approximately one-third of that demand.    Parenthetically, the wind provided another 2,600 MW right around noon.   That is approximately another 9 percent of the demand. 

There were no blackouts.   There were no rolling blackouts.   There were no frequency control issues.  There were, in fact, no extra-ordinary occurrences at all that day on the grid.  

Fig 2  Renewable Power Output, from CAISO website

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 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