Speaker at AIChE - STS in Houston on Global Warming

Subtitle: Is Global Warming Just BS (Bad Science)?

Today, I have the honor of being the person behind the podium at the First Friday Networking Lunch of the South Texas Section of AIChE, the professional society for chemical engineers in the US.    

The topic is A Skeptic's View of Man-Made Global Warming.   It is a great pleasure to accept the invitation to speak that was extended to me.  It is even better to see the society has offered a skeptic, like me, the chance to present my views (and the views of hundreds of my colleagues).  The local section, South Texas Section, has at the moment taken a turn toward full belief in the man-made aspect of global warming, specifically the perceived need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to save the planet.  

In March of this year, for example, the dinner meeting speaker gave a presentation on the horrors of global warming, and the steps he personally takes as a research professor to reduce CO2 emissions.   I attended that meeting (see link and see link) and asked one question at the end of the presentation. 

Today's presentation is limited to 45 minutes, so there is no way to cover the many aspects of why the data is so bad as to not be fit for purpose, why the analysis techniques are improper, and how the gross uncertainties in the many issues render completely wrong a conclusion of imminent catastrophe.  In short, CO2 is innocent.    Any and all efforts to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere will have zero or negligible effect on global temperatures.   However, today's presentation will give both an overview of the topics, and some technical details on issues such as inconsistent warming, bad data, bad analysis, and gross uncertainty in what is called "settled science."  I call it BS, for Bad Science. 

There is plenty of data (and I will present some of this) that shows the tiniest towns in the US have not warmed in over 100 years. In fact, most of the small towns have actually cooled.    The data is from NOAA, the National Climate Data Center.   The time span for this data reaches back to the 1890s, and extends to the present.  However, few of the sites have such long data, and even fewer have nearly complete data.  My current research is to identify and analyze the smallest towns with long records, less than 4 percent missing data, far from urban heat island influence, and well-distributed geographically.  Enough work has been done to conclude that the tiny towns are not warming, in fact, most are cooling or show zero trend.  

That, alone, invalidates the premise that CO2 increase has also caused the globe to warm.  The tiny towns also had CO2 increase over the decades, but they did not warm.   

More on this will be forthcoming, as this research will be presented for publication.

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  

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  

Bigger Wind Turbines Onshore and Offshore in 2019

Subtitle: Wind Has Won

Two major events in both offshore and onshore wind occurred in 2019; both have enormous (some would say HUUUGE) implications for renewable energy worldwide.  The first event is the installation of the largest-ever offshore wind turbine generator (WTG), the GE-built Haliade 12X in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.  Yes, it is an onshore installation, not offshore, but that is for ease of access during testing and verification purposes.   The 12X has a nominal output of 12 MW, and a claimed annual capacity factor of 63 percent.   The economics of the 12 MW WTG are very favorable; such that a sales price of 5 cents US per kWh allows a nice return on the investment.   A major wind project offshore in EU has announced they will use the 12 MW turbines.   see link for details of the GE Haliade 12X. 

Meanwhile, GE has done it again.  This time in the onshore industry, where a major limit to increased size and better economics for WTG has been the inability to transport longer blades from manufacturer to the wind turbine site.   The US Department of Energy recently sent out a call for ideas to solve the transportation problem.   GE has since (March, 2019) announced their 5 MW WTG, the Cypress model, that has blades fabricated in two parts for ease of shipping.  At the site, the two parts are joined for installation and operation.   This also is huge for onshore WTG, since the almost double output brings down the sales price of electricity.   Adequate returns are provided at present with 4.3 cents per kWh from the 2.5-3 MW size WTG.  The 5 MW Cypress WTG will allow an adequate return at something below the 4.3 cents, most likely in the 2.5-3 cents per kWh range.   see link for details of the Cypress 5 MW. 

We can expect that many older WTG projects with 1 MW size and smaller will soon upgrade to the 5 MW WTG.  The repowering projects have excellent economics because the infrastructure is mostly in place.   Bigger turbines reach up higher into better wind, and provide a greater annual capacity. 

As I have said often before, wind has won.

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  

Offshore Wind Sells Power at €44/MWh

Subtitle:  Wind Industry Will Fly from here on. 

The lowest price, so far, for offshore wind sales may just be the €44/ MWh that was announced this week.  The project, offshore Dunkirk, France, will be 600 MW and employ wind turbines with 12-13 MW capacity each.  Those are the largest at this point in time.   
see link to article describing the project. 

In US currency, that is approximately 5 cents per kWh delivered.   As stated before on SLB, wind has won. 

Future projects will most likely, almost assuredly, use the largest wind turbines available since the economics are overwhelmingly favorable.  They cost less to install per MW, and have better output via higher capacity factors.  Also, there are fewer of the larger turbines, so maintenance costs are lower.  

This is beyond the turning point the industry has long sought:  sales price of 10 cents per kWh.  

From here on, the investments will be heavy into offshore wind.   The prospects for onshore wind are more limited, since a large hurdle is transporting blades to the installation site.  The very large turbine blades for 12 MW wind turbines simply cannot pass under the various bridges.  Of course, the open ocean has no such restrictions.  

It's a good day for the renewable energy industry.  

Sandia National Lab, 50 MW offshore wind turbine concept
Blades are downwind of tower, blades flex in very high winds
to allow continued operation. 

Update: 6-23-19;  The offshore wind turbines are especially attractive in Europe, where the grid operators typically reduce natural gas-fired power plants as the wind power increases.  That is a savings of very expensive LNG that is vaporized to provide fuel to the power plants.  With LNG selling at $8 to $10 per million Btu, the electric customers should (and perhaps will) see a reduction in electric bills. 

The future is very bright for offshore wind in many areas of the world.  Northern Europe, US East Coast, US West Coast, and the East Coast of Asia are all developing wind projects offshore.   

Floating Spar mooring system, artist's concept
for Hywind, Scotland offshore wind farm
credit: Statoil ASA Environmental Statement

The largest turbines are not yet here, as SLB reported earlier, Sandia National Labs has a design for a 50 MW wind turbine, with flexible blades that bend with the strongest winds.   see link to SLB article, and see link to Sandia publication on the Segmented Ultralight Morphing Rotor.  (see photo at right)

The economics of such a wind turbine will be very attractive.   However, there are engineering issues to resolve with a large weight balanced at the top of a long and slender tower.   I suspect the answer will be, at least in part, a tower that is designed to sway in the wind, like a palm tree.

Another very good possibility is to employ the floating spar mooring technology as the Hywind project in Scotland uses.   The floating spars also sway in the strongest winds.  See this link for the SLB article on the Hywind floating spar wind farm.   -- end update

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  

On Generation IV Nuclear Plants

Subtitle: Safer and Cheaper, or Just Make-Work Projects?

Tonight, 4-11-2019, the South Texas Section of AIChE will have the monthly dinner meeting, at which the presentation will discuss the research and status of Generation IV nuclear power plants.  This topic is the result, most likely, of the mis-guided belief by the current Section leadership that man-made climate change requires non-carbon-based electric power generation.  Therefore, they say, more nuclear plants should be built.  And, since no one can deny that the existing crop of nuclear power plants are far too dangerous and far too costly, they see a need for a new generation of nuclear designs.   This article poses a few questions I would ask, given the opportunity, about these planet-saving Gen IV nuclear power plants. 

What is a Gen IV plant?  These are, according to the NRC, nuclear plant designs that do not use light water as a moderator in the reactor.  At present, the existing plants use boiling water, or high pressure water in the reactor core as neutron moderators.  These have been shown to be far too expensive, as stated above.   The Gen IV plants will use various other things, such as graphite spheres in a high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR), molten fluoride salt in the reactor (MSR), or various molten or liquid metals in the reactor (molten lead, molten sodium, e.g.) .  

The questions, for now, include these:  What is the safety for Gen IV?  Will these plants require subsidies?  What is the on-line  capacity factor, or reliability of Gen IV?  What is the cost to construct?  What is the cost to operate?  What is the cost to decommission?  What are the issues with long-term spent fuel?

Safety

Will Gen IV reactors be safe, so safe that there is no longer an absolute need for the US government to provide damage payments for a catastrophic nuclear incident?  At present, every reactor enjoys such protection under the Price-Anderson Act.  Insurance companies refuse to insure nuclear plants, above a modest amount that is required by federal law.   Will these plants have materials of construction that operate reliably and safely for decade after decade?  We note that molten fluoride salts had serious metal cracking and embrittlement in earlier tests, are there proven alloys today that provide a safe operating system?

Subsidies

Will Gen IV plants require the numerous subsidies that current generation of light water reactors have?  SLB has articles on the numerous subsidies, such as liability for radiation leaks via the Price-Anderson Act, construction loan guarantees, new reactor direct subsidies for the first 10 years of operation, making lawsuits during construction almost impossible, and others.

Capacity Factor

Will Gen IV reactors run at 90 percent output year after year, for 40 years or more?  Will these exotic materials, molten lead, molten sodium, molten fluoride salts, create operating problems that shut the plant down routinely?  Test reactors over the years have had very serious drawbacks with pumping such materials, to name just one. 

Cost to Construct  

Will Gen IV plants be built at a low cost, so they can actually compete in the electricity market?  We see that pressurized water reactors now have an outrageous cost, of $12 billion for a 1000 MWe output.   How can anyone know what the costs to build will be?  The industry has time after time given low-ball initial costs, then see the actual costs balloon to 3, 4, and 5 times that initial cost.   

Cost to Operate

Will Gen IV plants have a low cost to operate, so that they can actually compete in the market?  We see today that plant after plant in the US cannot compete, even on their cash costs.  Current plants are shutting down, or crying to the government for more and more subsidies to keep the plants operating.   

Cost to Decommission

Will Gen IV plants require billions of dollars, and decades of time to decommission when the plants finally close?  Who provides that money?  Will it be a government subsidy, like the light water reactors now enjoy?

 Long-term Issues with Spent Fuel

Will the Gen IV reactors have spent fuel that must be stored, guarded, and cooled for centuries?  What are those radioactive byproducts, and what are the toxicity issues?  What requirements will be made to ensure many generations are safe from deadly radiation from these plants?

These questions will suffice, for now.   I hope to ask a question or two.

UPDATE:  The meeting concluded, my thoughts and comments are on the next post at this link.  end update 4-12-2019

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