Cap and Trade and Yes and No

[Argus]

India is planning to move toward nuclear power, hence the purchase of 350 million dollars worth of our uranium. China will of course still have its coal plats but is moving toward lower fossil fuel production. i.e. gas, and non fossil i.e. wind, solar. I think most accept that CO2 is bad. The Indian PM stated he looked at his countries purchase of uranium as helping to save the world from global warming.

Just how many nuclear plants do you think India can afford to build, and can operate without blowing them up? SIX HUNDRED COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS. are being built. Do you think they can replace them all with nukes?

[Argus]

Yet, the EU is on track to reduce emissions by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030. They are achieving this through green capacity and massive efficiency improvements.

And because so many industries which emit a lot of Co2 are moving to the third world, thus robbing them of jobs while improving the world's C02 emissions by a big fat zero.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think it's impossible for the public's opinion of nuclear power to change though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issues

Read and learn. Support peaked in 2005/2006:

" Those who were favourable of nuclear being used dropped to 63% from a historic high of 70% in 2005 and 68% in September, 2006.[6]"

[On Guard for Thee]

Just how many nuclear plants do you think India can afford to build, and can operate without blowing them up? SIX HUNDRED COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS. are being built. Do you think they can replace them all with nukes?

Not sure where you got the 600 number, but India has a plan in place to reduce the emissions from their existing plants up to 80% over the next 3 years. I don't know how many nuclear plants you can build with 350 million bucks worth of uranium, do you....

http://www.wsj.com/articles/india-plans-new-rules-to-clean-up-coal-fired-power-plants-1432127128

[Argus]

Not sure where you got the 600 number, but India has a plan in place to reduce the emissions from their existing plants up to 80% over the next 3 years. I don't know how many nuclear plants you can build with 350 million bucks worth of uranium, do you....

http://www.wsj.com/articles/india-plans-new-rules-to-clean-up-coal-fired-power-plants-1432127128

Do you seriously think ANYONE can reduce their emissions by 80% in three years?!

As for how much to build a power plant. Most of the ones in the west cost many billions each. Granted, India will save money by having no public hearings and allowing no lawsuits or environmental studies, while paying the workers constructing it a pittance. But it's still going to cost a lot. and Indian society is notoriously corrupt. Isure wouldn't trust a nuclear power plant built in India.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you seriously think ANYONE can reduce their emissions by 80% in three years?!

As for how much to build a power plant. Most of the ones in the west cost many billions each. Granted, India will save money by having no public hearings and allowing no lawsuits or environmental studies, while paying the workers constructing it a pittance. But it's still going to cost a lot. and Indian society is notoriously corrupt. Isure wouldn't trust a nuclear power plant built in India.

India already has a number of nuclear plants and is their 4th largest source of electricity. But don't worry, now the embargo has been lifted, very likely Canada will again assist them on further construction.

[Wilber]

Countries with highly poluting industries can make the biggest improvements. As with any other change, the first 50% is a lot easier than the second 50%. They can make a big difference just by increasing the efficiencies of their already inefficient plants. After that, it gets more difficult.

[dre]

A lot of convincing will need to be done in the wake of Fukushima.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_nuclear_issues

Read and learn. Support peaked in 2005/2006:

" Those who were favourable of nuclear being used dropped to 63% from a historic high of 70% in 2005 and 68% in September, 2006.[6]"

Public support is not the problem, and neither is safety. Its economics. The viability of nuclear energy depends on the cost of alternatives, and in North America that means natural gas.

Only somebody that cant do simple math would invest in a nuclear plant here. You would have to be an idiot.

John W. Rowe, the chairman of Exelon, the nation’s biggest nuclear utility, had said that he would not build a new reactor at today’s natural gas prices. Referring to the geologic formations from which natural gas is extracted, he said in a recent speech, “Shale is good for the country, bad for new nuclear development.”

“There must be a shortage of natural gas and stable high prices to make the economics right, ‘’ he said of nuclear power in a speech to a nuclear group.

Nuclear plants will never get built in any significant number in North America without heavy government intervention.

In order for investors to build nuclear plants in North America one of the following things must happen.

1. A NatGas shortage (not going to happen without government intervention blocking exploration and extraction).

2. A heavy carbon tax or carbon credit scheme.

Kinda funny since these are the same schemes that the folks around here that keep trotting out Nuclear energy as a solution rail against. They dont get the basic economics.

This whole conversation is basically mute as far as North America goes. Anyone paying attention already knows whats going to happen... We will build NATGAS plants for the forseeable future, and keep experimenting with renewables. In about 20 years we will keep building NatGas plants, but we will be starting to build low emissions coal plants again as well. A hundred years from now we wont even have power lines, and every device that needs energy will have some kind of mini thorium reactor or something like that, courtesy of R&D by countries with no coal or gas.

And we wont hit any arbitrary emissions targets, but we will still emit an awful lot less than if we had not targets at all.

Edited May 28, 2015 by dre

[jbg]

Public support is not the problem, and neither is safety. Its economics. The viability of nuclear energy depends on the cost of alternatives, and in North America that means natural gas.

Only somebody that cant do simple math would invest in a nuclear plant here. You would have to be an idiot.

Quite true. Fracking has really changed the energy universe.

[TimG]

You seem to think that if there is no silver bullet, it isn't even worth trying.

I am against arbitrary targets that cannot be met given the technology known today. I am not against R&D. The problem with targets that cannot be met is they provide incentives to game the system rather than accomplish the objectives. For example, the synthetic petroleum sounds great on paper but the manufacturing process could be worse than simply burning fossil fuels (this is the case with biofuels). Targets encourage regulators to turn a blind eye to these problems if doing so allows them to pretend that the targets were met. Edited May 28, 2015 by TimG

[Wilber]

I am against arbitrary targets that cannot be met given the technology known today. I am not against R&D. The problem with targets that cannot be met is they provide incentives to game the system rather than accomplish the objectives. For example, the synthetic petroleum sounds great on paper but the manufacturing process could be worse than simply burning fossil fuels (this is the case with biofuels). Targets encourage regulators to turn a blind eye to these problems if doing so allows them to pretend that the targets were met.

The manufacturing process has already been spelled out, what remains is to demonstrate it on a volume basis. You're not against R&D, you're just against doing anything with it.

[On Guard for Thee]

The manufacturing process has already been spelled out, what remains is to demonstrate it on a volume basis. You're not against R&D, you're just against doing anything with it.

Which is the type of dithering I suspect big oil really appreciates.

[TimG]

The manufacturing process has already been spelled out, what remains is to demonstrate it on a volume basis.

I doubt that whatever is claimed in the article represents a full accounting of the costs production. For example, the increased food prices which are a consequence of burning food for biofuels does not show up as a 'cost of production'. From a theoretical perspective I do not believe that anyone can come up with a process that replicates fossil fuels without expending a lot of energy produced by fossil fuels. Here is a more realistic take on the hype:

http://www.quora.com/Is-Audis-blue-crude-really-the-fuel-of-the-future

It's all about the hydrogen. Get me cheap or free hydrogen and I can do all manner of things, including building a whole petrochemical value chain by stripping carbon dioxide from air, stack gas, or from the sea, do it cheaply, and do it easily, all using known chemistry. But until you've figured out how to get the hydrogen for a price affordable enough to market your product, all the downstream conversion technology in the world means, basically, nothing.

But your credulity when it comes to 'blue diesel' proves my point when it comes to targets. People obsessed with meeting targets will accept fraudulent technologies that simply hide the problem. The only way to address the the problem is with technologies that are economically viable based on their own merits.

Edited May 28, 2015 by TimG

[Wilber]

Which is the type of dithering I suspect big oil really appreciates.

Wouldn't surprise me if big oil such as Exxon, Standard, RDS, BP etc are very involved in this kind of research themselves. They aren't stupid.

I'm wondering what kind of manufacturing process could be worse than burning vast quantities of natural gas to extract bitumen from sand.

[On Guard for Thee]

Wouldn't surprise me if big oil such as Exxon, Standard, RDS, BP etc are very involved in this kind of research themselves. They aren't stupid.

I'm wondering what kind of manufacturing process could be worse than burning vast quantities of natural gas to extract bitumen from sand.

Thats true actually. Big oil spend a lot of dough on this type of research because they aren't stupid. They have a lot of scientific expertise on the payroll and I suspect their shareholders don't really care what kind of energy they produce, so long as the dividends keep pouring in. They cant afford to dither these days.

[TimG]

I'm wondering what kind of manufacturing process could be worse than burning vast quantities of natural gas to extract bitumen from sand.

The EROI for the oil sands is worst case 3 units of oil energy to 1 unit of input energy. The EROI for any synthetic process will have to be < 1 unit of oil energy for one unit of input because no process is 100% efficient. It is impossible for it to be more efficient than digging up fossil fuels.

There are no magic bullets. Governments passing laws to require the production of unicorns will not result in any unicorns but you will see a lot of people trying to cash in by producing fakes. Why are you blind to this problem?

Edited May 28, 2015 by TimG

[Wilber]

Thats true actually. Big oil spend a lot of dough on this type of research because they aren't stupid. They have a lot of scientific expertise on the payroll and I suspect their shareholders don't really care what kind of energy they produce, so long as the dividends keep pouring in. They cant afford to dither these days.

I'm a shareholder in Chevron and RDS and you are correct, but if my dividends can come from the production of greener fuels, so much the better.

[Wilber]

The EROI for the oil sands is worst case 3 units of oil energy to 1 unit of input energy. The EROI for any synthetic process will have to be < 1 unit of oil energy for one unit of input because no process is 100% efficient. It is impossible for it to be more efficient than digging up fossil fuels.

There are no magic bullets. Governments passing laws to require the production of unicorns will not result in any unicorns but you will see a lot of people trying to cash in by producing fakes. Why are you blind to this problem?

I've already said there are no magic bullets that will replace petroleum but why do you believe that science is stuck in the eighties when it comes to dealing with this issue? There are advancements being made in the efficient production of hydrogen being made as we speak and I have posted links to that effect.

Hydrogen itself is a lousy motor fuel that can't be used in internal combustion engines without extensive modifications and even then the results aren't great compared to existing fuels. It also has to be stored at extremely low temperatures to remain in liquid form. It is really only suitable for fuel cells. Being able to combine it with CO2 already present in the atmosphere to produce a liquid fuel that can be used in existing engines and combined with existing fuels is no small thing.

All just unicorns to you though. The world stopped in 70's when unleaded gasoline was introduced.

Petroleum has so many other uses that are indispensable to our society that we are actually wasting it by using it as a fuel.

An oil executive once observed that burning oil for energy is like burning Picassos for heat. Oil is extraordinarily valuable as the basis for so many products we use every day that the thought of simply burning it ought to be unthinkable. So versatile are oil molecules that they can be transformed into substances that serve as clothing, medicines, building materials, carpet, skin care products, sporting goods, agricultural chemicals, perfumes, and myriad other products.

[TimG]

I've already said there are no magic bullets that will replace petroleum but why do you believe that science is stuck in the eighties when it comes to dealing with this issue? There are advancements being made in the efficient production of hydrogen being made as we speak and I have posted links to that effect.

I have explained myself many times but you keep wanting to misrepresent my position. I am not against trying to find better solutions. I am against regulations mandating arbitrary CO2 reduction targets when no one has any idea how these reductions could be accomplished. Such targets simply encourage the creation of various scams designed to create the illusion of meeting the targets while doing nothing or making the problem worse. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that human nature will seek the easiest path? If the easiest path is to subvert the regulations with scams then that is what will happen.

Being able to combine it with CO2 already present in the atmosphere to produce a liquid fuel that can be used in existing engines and combined with existing fuels is no small thing.

As the link I provided above stated: if you have free hydrogen you can do any number of a wonderful things with chemistry and these techniques have been known for decades (i.e. 'blue diseal' is not a new idea). The problem is producing the hydrogen which takes energy and, more importantly, all of the energy that ends up in the fuel must be provided as an input which puts 'blue diesel' at a huge disadvantage when compared to fossil fuels which store energy provided previously by nature.

When you combine the need for large energy inputs and the desire by bureaucrats to make electricity as expensive as possible there is no plausible scenario for large scale use of synthetic fuels. Wishful thinking does not change the laws of physics.

Edited May 28, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

An interesting, and often overlooked aspect of the quest for green energy with regard to solar energy.
The manufacturing process for solar panels and the other gear needed causes an awful lot of CO2 emissions, and then afterwards, the stuff is toxic.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-darker-side-of-solar-power/article24649804/

[Wilber]

I have explained myself many times but you keep wanting to misrepresent my position. I am not against trying to find better solutions. I am against regulations mandating arbitrary CO2 reduction targets when no one has any idea how these reductions could be accomplished. Such targets simply encourage the creation of various scams designed to create the illusion of meeting the targets while doing nothing or making the problem worse. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that human nature will seek the easiest path? If the easiest path is to subvert the regulations with scams then that is what will happen.

As the link I provided above stated: if you have free hydrogen you can do any number of a wonderful things with chemistry and these techniques have been known for decades (i.e. 'blue diseal' is not a new idea). The problem is producing the hydrogen which takes energy and, more importantly, all of the energy that ends up in the fuel must be provided as an input which puts 'blue diesel' at a huge disadvantage when compared to fossil fuels which store energy provided previously by nature.

When you combine the need for large energy inputs and the desire by bureaucrats to make electricity as expensive as possible there is no plausible scenario for large scale use of synthetic fuels. Wishful thinking does not change the laws of physics.

I think you keep misrepresenting you position. You pay lip service to R&D but whenever someone comes up with a new technology and applies it, you blow it off as unicorns and all roads lead back to oil.

You back that up with a quote from a so called " chemical industry consultant", whatever that is. I also don't think companies such as the second or third (depending on the week) largest car maker on the planet is much into creating "scams". They have a huge stake in the future of motor vehicle fuels because unless we can come up with alternative fuels that can be used by existing engines, completely new types of powerplants and their energy sources will be required.

This system is intended to be used with renewable electricity sources, it is not intended to replace petroleum completely. Like you, I don't think that is possible for quite some time but just because we can't do everything to mitigate a problem, doesn't mean we should do nothing. That is a childish approach to problem solving that gets you nowhere.

Think of this stuff as energy storage, Converting electrical energy into hydrogen, used to make a portable liquid fuel that can be used in existing engines, without the batteries and range anxiety associated with electric vehicles.

I do acknowledge that human nature will seek the easiest path. That's why it takes a shove once and a while to put it on the right path.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Wilber

[Wilber]

An interesting, and often overlooked aspect of the quest for green energy with regard to solar energy.

The manufacturing process for solar panels and the other gear needed causes an awful lot of CO2 emissions, and then afterwards, the stuff is toxic.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-darker-side-of-solar-power/article24649804/

That's what makes ideas like Audi's so important. By converting the electricity to a CO2 neutral liquid fuel, you can take batteries out of the storage equation.

[TimG]

I think you keep misrepresenting you position. You pay lip service to R&D but whenever someone comes up with a new technology and applies it, you blow it off as unicorns and all roads lead back to oil.

That is because all of the ideas so far are not viable or likely to be viable. You seem to think that a press release tells you all you need to know about an idea.

I also don't think companies such as the second or third (depending on the week) largest car maker on the planet is much into creating "scams"

Big car makers often want support of politicians and doing bogus research in to renewable energy is a good way to curry favour with ignorant politicians. It is also provides good P.R for the large segment of the population who do not understand energy production and cannot understand that schemes are not likely to be viable.

Think of this stuff as energy storage, Converting electrical energy into hydrogen, used to make a portable liquid fuel that can be used in existing engines, without the batteries and range anxiety associated with electric vehicles.

I would be surprised if a plant could run efficiently if was only powered by "unneeded" renewable energy production. In Germany power producers are being forced to shutdown natural gas plants because of the inefficiencies created by constantly starting and stopping production as renewables vary.

I do acknowledge that human nature will seek the easiest path. That's why it takes a shove once and a while to put it on the right path.

You still don't get it: demanding the impossible guarantees the development of scams and that is what we have been seeing since this obsession with CO2 reduction targets started.

[Wilber]

That is because all of the ideas so far are not viable or likely to be viable. You seem to think that a press release tells you all you need to know about an idea.

Why not? It obviously tells you all you need to know.

Big car makers often want support of politicians and doing bogus research in to renewable energy is a good way to curry favour with ignorant politicians. It is also provides good P.R for the large segment of the population who do not understand energy production and cannot understand that schemes are not likely to be viable.

Audi knows nothing but you do. OK

I would be surprised if a plant could run efficiently if was only powered by "unneeded" renewable energy production. In Germany power producers are being forced to shutdown natural gas plants because of the inefficiencies created by constantly starting and stopping production as renewables vary.

Wouldn't know and neither do you.

You still don't get it: demanding the impossible guarantees the development of scams and that is what we have been seeing since this obsession with CO2 reduction targets started.

To you, everything is impossible.

[TimG]

Why not? It obviously tells you all you need to know.

My knowledge of the engineering problems associated with these kinds of ideas come from the education and work. When I see a press release I can see if information has been omitted and can make a good guess about where the troubles will come from.

Audi knows nothing but you do. OK

Audi knows what they are doing and they could be completely aware that the scheme is not viable but it is still useful to them as a company. You are the one making the *assumption* that since Audi is investing money they must think it is viable. I simply pointed out that your assumption is not true.

Wouldn't know and neither do you.

I have enough knowledge of manufacturing processes to know what is plausible. These processes don't do well if they are constantly halted due to power interruptions. But in this case it is not impossible - it just represents a source of increased costs.

To you, everything is impossible.

No. Just the wonky smoke and mirror concepts created by businesses trying to cash in on the CO2 obsession.

ideas that I don't think are impossible: artificial intelligence, 150 year lifespans

Edited May 28, 2015 by TimG