20 Quadrillion Btu of Wasted Energy

[kristopher]

What does a centralized thermal system built around nuclear and fossil fuels get you?

20 Quadrillion Btu of Wasted Energy
And you thought internal combustion engines were inefficient.


The Annual Energy Review 2010 has more than 400 pages, all chock-full of the latest information on energy trends in the U.S. The report, produced by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, notes the increasing presence of renewables in a series of graphs and charts. It is a sign that renewables are statistically significant enough in numbers (outside of hydro) to necessitate inclusion.

Many of the trends are not surprising, although one colorful graph that shows a yellow line reaching far past the others raises an eyebrow.

The graph shows total energy consumption by energy source for U.S. residential and commercial sectors. The line, however, does not represent the increased use of electricity to plug in everything from iPads to LCD TVs, nor does it show the increase in natural gas production. Rather, it illustrates electrical losses defined as energy losses associated with the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity.



And just how much energy are we talking about? At least about 20 quadrillion Btu and perhaps even as much as 26.8 quadrillion Btu, if you consult another figure that also appears in the same report. While much of that loss is “a thermodynamically necessary feature of the steam-electric cycle,” according to the EIA, it is still more than double the amount of electricity that is sold in the U.S. each year....

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/20-quadrillion-btus-of-wasted-energy/

[Pab Sungenis]

1. What are the inefficiency numbers on solar, geothermal, and wind power?

I'm curious.

Since photovoltaic cells and windmills don't use steam to turn turbines, logic should dictate that they're less lossy.

Let's also not forget that a lot of the energy we generate gets converted naturally into heat as it moves through copper wires from one place to another. Ohmic heating wastes a buttload of energy, too.

[RC]

2. What we need are small local nuclear power plants to cut transmission losses.

Instead of electrical sub-stations all over the place, build small nuclear power plants in their place.
This will diversify the power sources and help ease the strain on the electrical grid, insuring more reliable electricity.

Edited to add:
Solar and wind are both less efficient and even nonexistent at times. They cannot supply anywhere near our electrical needs. Only fill in when they can.
It takes a lot of energy and hazardous materials to build solar cells. Plus thy are not very efficient compared to other power sources.

[patrice]

3. nuclear waste???

[Nostradammit]

4. That's the dumbest idea yet.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS???!!!

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS???!!!!!!

Did you just denigrate solar energy technology by arguing that hazardous materials are involved
while arguing FOR nuclear power?

That is completely insane.

[kristopher]

5. "They cannot supply anywhere near our electrical needs"

Yes they can. And they can do so more reliably, more safely, more quickly and for less money than any form of nuclear power.

That is why all forecasts point to the full foundation for a renewable energy infrastructure being in place by 2030 with a complete transition by around 2050.

[Kolesar]

6. Nuclear plants need a water source for the "condensers" ... eom

[zeaper]

8. Water is the best but many smaller steam plants use air

However, I do not know of any nuclear plants that use air, I think in general they are too big.

[Kolesar]

12. IIRC, solar steam plants would use air cooled condensers

I read it on a message board a long time ago.

[pscot]

7. Like this?

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/portable-backyard-nuclear-reactors-ready-to-be-installed-by-2013.html


Our fuel is very unique. It's uranium hydride. UH3 is the chemical formula. Low-enriched, about 10 percent -235, the rest is U-238. By comparison, bomb-grade fuel is about 98 percent enriched.

You can't turn our fuel into a bomb. You'd have to re-enrich, re-process the fuel, so you might as well start with yellowcake. That's one of the neat safety features of our reactor. For nefarious purposes, our reactor has absolutely no value whatsoever.

Waste After 10 Years the Size of a Football
On how to dispose of fuel:

We're going to take it back to the factory and we're going to reuse most of it.

The waste that comes out of our reactor after powering 20,000 homes for 8-10 years is about the size of a football. Using coal and gas over the same time frame, the waste stream for just you, after factoring in CO2 emissions, would overflow Mile High Stadium in Denver. So our waste stream is very concentrated, and yes, we have to do something with it, but there are known ways of dealing with it.

[kristopher]

9. That is near-criminal misrepresentation...

The technology that creates the danger of nuclear arms proliferation is the process to make or "re-enrich, re-process the fuel". The only acceptable path to that enrichment technology is the claim of energy security that can be made if a country relies on nuclear fission for energy.

Far from being a technology that would inhibit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the spread of mini-reactors would do exactly that same thing the spread of larger reactors would do - it would result in the spread of dual-use refining and enrichment technology that would result in the spread of nuclear weapons.

These "mini-reactors" solve none of the problems associated with nuclear power.

[pscot]

10. Are they viable?

Do they perform as advertized at a reasonable cost?

[kristopher]

11. Perform as advertised?

Well, the only claim you've referenced was related to proliferation and while it was technically not based on false statements, it did deliberately use a red herring logical fallacy to obfuscate the truth, which I consider meets the ethical definition of a lie.

[pscot]

13. Yes. But could the device described in the article

be capable of providing electricity to 20,000 homes for 10 years?

[kristopher]

14. Do we have nuclear powered submarines and ships?

Why have we not already exploited this technology for stationary use?

Because when examined closely it is worse at solving the 4 problems of nuclear power than the larger units. Those problems are cost, safety, proliferation and waste.

Why is this application being floated now?

Because the nuclear industry is dying on the vine and it desperately needs to shine people on in order to continue getting funding.


You'd agree China is avidly pursuing all energy sources, right?

"China should abandon plans to use ... reactors for short-term development"
He Zuoxiu, "a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and researcher at the CAS Institute of Theoretical Physics", reviewed China's push to develop nuclear energy and
"believes Beijing’s nuclear plans are too risky to justify. Opening a debate on the role of atomic energy in China’s future, he outlines three lessons from Fukushima."

His conclusion?
"I believe China should abandon plans to use slow, fast and thermal reactors for short-term development goals, as the conditions are not ripe for significant expansion. How, then, do I think nuclear power should be employed? I advocate using nuclear power not for basic electricity supply, but for sea transport."



“China must alter nuclear policy” (1)
http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4576--China-must-change-its-nuclear-policy-1 -

“China must alter nuclear policy” (Part 2)
http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4577