COAL & ELECTRICITY  page.    ►to Home Page    ● Site Guide   RETURN TO COAL YARD NUKE PAGE 

coal2nuclear.com                 Stopping Global Warming's Advance

Coal-Burning Power Plants: The Biggest Single Cause of Global Warming.                                  Where are these numbers coming from?   

Global Warming's Smoking Gun: The world's 138,000 power plants.  World wide, power plants make 70% - or 11 billion tons - of the 16.3 billion tons of the annual excess CO2 that's causing Global Warming.  That's about three times more CO2 than the world's next biggest CO2 polluter group, the world's 600 million cars and trucks. 

 Are environmentalists to blame for "Global Warming"? 

 

Coal2Nuclear:  Why Coal Yard Nukes?

 

 

Global Warming's Smoking Gun

Modifying coal power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions --- (A Technology Report)

Why "upgrade" existing coal power plants to pebble nuclear?

Discussion

 

 

 

Global Warming's Smoking Gun 

Coal-burning electric power plants are the world's largest source of CO2 emissions.

  World wide, power plants make 70% - or 11 billion tons - of Global Warming's 16.3 billion tons of excess annual CO2 accumulation. 

Coal-burning power plants are the Global Warming issue that cannot be avoided.

Doesn't it make sense to go after power plants first?

 

"Look at it this way:  More than 600 fossil-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of total global emissions -- of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change.  Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power.  And these days it can do so safely." --- From: "In an era of global warming, some environmentalists are taking a second look at a much-maligned energy source." by Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the original GreenPeace founders.  His web site: Greenspirit     

(Conway rail yard, Pittsburgh, PA)

 

For several years coal has been advertising a "Clean Coal" that does not exist but giving the impression it could.  This is clearly false advertising based upon wishful thinking, not fact.  How much longer are we going to allow the government to let coal's PR people keep blowing smoke in our eyes?

"One could argue that ours is not an open society, but rather one dominated by corporate power . . .  the amplified free speech of the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign does indeed threaten all of humanity." --- Kurt Cobb
 

 

Nuclear electricity produces less than 1% of fossil fuel's carbon dioxide.

(Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company, produces electricity from Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat, and Wind energy and has produced accredited Environment Product Declarations for all these processes.  Vattenfall finds that, averaged over the entire lifecycle of their Nuclear Plant including Uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the total amount of CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power.  Vattenfall measures its CO2 output from Natural Gas to be 400 grams per KW-Hr and from Coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr.  Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of Fossil-Fuel based generation. In fact, Vattenfall finds its Nuclear Plants to emit less CO2 over the lifecycle than even green energy production mechanisms such as Hydro, Wind, Solar, and Biomass.)

 

Coal2Nuclear  ____________________________________________________________  top 

 

Modifying coal power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions

With 138,000 fossil fuel-burning power plants out there making most of Global Warming, the need is so great everyone should be doing everything they can.

Ways we have modified coal power plants to reduce their CO2 emissions a bit:

# 1.   Convert to "Clean Coal," - Coal CO2 Capture and Storage - CCS.  Hasn't happened yet, may never happen.  Only cynical advertising by coal companies to date to mislead and confuse public.  Bottom Line: A potentially very dangerous technology (10% CO2 leakage will kill you. Remember Lake Nyos ?) not ready yet.  A laboratory experiment, still trying to figure out how to make it happen on existing full-size power plants.  Mostly talk of a "Manhattan Project-Size" effort financed with your tax dollars for coal's benefit.  Zero CO2 has actually been captured so far, may or may not also capture coal toxins, an estimated 25% leakage of CO2 with a 25% loss of electricity output due to powering the CO2 capture equipment will make electricity cost at least 1.3 times as much per kiloWatt hour.  -----> Strongest pro-CCS paper I've seen so far: (Downloadable pdf)   Sequestering Carbon Emissions in the Terrestrial Biosphere  &  Carbon Capture Vaporware

# 2.   Convert to burning biomass such as wood pellets, municipal waste.  Excellent idea in that biomass is not a "fossil" fuel and is considered to be "carbon neutral."  Bottom Line: It is being done.  CO2 produced is "carbon neutral," toxins diverse but usually known, fuel sources tiny compared with coal or natural gas, cost probably higher per kWh than with fossil fuels.

# 3.   Convert to burning "Clean Natural Gas."  Adding simple gas burners is a very quick and cheap conversion to make.  The down side of this is that natural gas makes 2/3 as much CO2 per kiloWatt hour as coal.  Bottom Line: It is being done.  Environmental benefit of 33% CO2 reduction, coal toxins eliminated, same amount of electricity, going from coal to natural gas substantially increases fuel cost.

[My natural gas CO2 data source:  http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/co2emiss00.pdf  The DOE-EIA web page (Table 4) is saying 1.3 pounds of CO2 per kiloWatt hour (kWh) is made by natural gas-burning power plants.  Coal makes about 2.0 pounds of CO2 per kWh.]

# 4.   Convert by adding natural gas burning turbine generators.  The gas turbine's hot exhaust is also used to heat the heat recovery steam generators to make steam for the original coal steam turbines. (Right, right)  Bottom Line: It is being done.  More electricity usually makes even more total CO2, coal toxins eliminated, going from coal to natural gas substantially increases fuel cost.

In situations where grid-attached wind power is also involved, a turbine's quick power response helps to keep the grid stable as the wind dies and surges.  Turbines are much quicker than coal or nuclear.

http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/DistGen/Tutorial/CombTurbine.htm   Source: TechPro DTE Energy Bob Fegan 2002

 

Coal CO2 Capture and Sequestration Technologies (CCS):  The promise of "Clean Coal."

# 5.  The Swedish company, Vattenfall, have prepared an excellent set of explanations covering the three major coal CO2 capture and sequestration technologies that have emerged.  So far, it still looks as if an additional 25% to 50% in operating costs an/or power losses will be incurred to power the capture machinery and to pay for chemicals used in some of the processes.

Oxyfuel Combustion Capture:  http://www.vattenfall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/399403facts/399433captu/399529oxyfu/index.jsp 

Precombustion Capture:          http://www.vattenfall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/399403facts/399433captu/399496pre-c/index.jsp

Postcombustion Capture:        http://www.vattenfall.com/www/co2_en/co2_en/399403facts/399433captu/399463post-/index.jsp 

Postcombustion Capture is being looked at as the technology best-suited to bring our 138,000 existing fossil fuel-burning power plants under control.  A CO2 leakage of 20% slipping past the capture system is being spoken of as acceptable.  The captured CO2 would be compressed to about 1,000 pounds per square inch to liquefy it and then the liquid CO2 would be injected into an underground disposal well.  CO2 is heavier than air and flows to the ground's lowest surfaces such as lowlands and basements.

Since only a 10% concentration of CO2 is lethal to humans, there is concern of a Bhopal-like accident due to small earthquakes that would enable these large accumulations of highly pressurized gas to escape by opening up multiple blowholes in ground ruptures.  Although a landslide triggered the 1986 Lake Nyos CO2 incident which killed thousands in Africa, Lake Nyos is cited as an example of the potential asphyxiation hazard geologically trapped CO2 creates if released.

 

What this web site is suggesting:

# 6.   Upgrade from coal to nuclear.  The world's 5,000 largest coal power plants would be converted from coal heat to nuclear heat by using a small underground reactor buried in the power plant's coal yard.  Nuclear energy causes about 1% the CO2 coal produces (this from uranium and thorium mining) so a huge environmental benefit is available with nuclear.  

Bottom Line:  Unknown idea, untried as a coal to nuclear conversion.   All technology and equipment exists.  Will provide maximum environmental benefit - zero emissions of any kind - zero CO2 and coal toxins, same amount of electricity, fuel cost about same as coal but well below gas.

 

Coal2Nuclear ____________________________________________________________  top  

 

Why "upgrade" existing coal power plants to pebble nuclear?

Why upgrading coal power plants to pebble nuclear is so important:

There is no time to waste and very little money worldwide to fight CO2.  We simply have no other choice.

Electricity Situation In The United States

Electricity is a very 'high' form of energy, almost another form of life itself.  We have forgotten what it means to not have to fill a fuel tank on the back of our television sets once a week in the way many of our grandmothers had to fill their their kitchen ranges with kerosene in the '20s.

The United States' electricity situation: "Right now the nation has 760 gigaWatts of [baseload and load-following] power plants to meet current consumption, with another 154 in reserve capacity to maintain grid reliability.  [Total = 914]  But in fact only 10 gigs is truly excess [baseload] capacity.  The other 144, [mostly small intermittent-duty gas turbines], is utterly essential to keep lights on when unexpected demand arises from heat waves, outages or maintenance downtime.  That reserve will begin to shrink quickly.  North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) estimates that over the next decade 135 gigaWatts of new capacity will be needed to meet the growth in consumption.  But right now plants producing a total of 57 gigaWatts are planned." -- FORBES, June 20, 2008. 
China's growth for 2008 alone is 66 gigaWatts, almost all coal.  What a sorry electrical situation we are in. 

Averaged U.S. electricity production: Solar = 1.5 gW; Geothermal = 3.2 gW; Wind = 4.3 gigaWatts; Hydro = 24 gW; Natural gas = 87 gW; Nuclear = 92 gW; Coal = 300 gW.  Total = 512 gW.  (These are 2004 numbers from the EIA --- JH)

Electrical sizes of our different sources of electricity: Modern Nuclear Plant: 1.6 gW, Coal unit: 1/2 gW, Wind Turbine: 1/1,000 gW.

Note: The world's 2005 total electricity generation nameplate capacity was 3,889 gigaWatts (EIA). --- JH

Keeping our standard of living while moving beyond a carbon-powered to an electricity-powered United States: If, by 2025, coal is completely replaced by nuclear, we will still need to pick up 300 gW-year (50%) of oil, and 70 gW-year (30%) of natural gas, totaling an additional 370 gW-year of electricity from nuclear. 

Adding in 270 gigaWatts for two decades of growth from above, makes a total of 640 gW.  We will have to build 400+ additional AREVA 1.6 gW EPR reactors to meet this need.  That's less than 20 years from now, a huge task to be completed in a relatively short time.  Carbon restrictions plus growth threatens to throw the United States into a chronic electricity shortage crisis made worse by spiraling electricity prices.  Expect a jolt every time you open your electric bill.

Switching from gasoline to electricity, US automobiles would use about 150 gW of electricity.  It would take about 250,000 2 mW wind turbines to make enough electricity just to power our cars.  To install that many wind turbines in 5 years we would have to install 137 every day. 

Nuclear is the lowest cost electricity production fuel now.

 

Compelling reasons to make getting rid of our coal-burning boilers as efficient as possible.

a) The idea of making clean electrical energy in massive amounts to replace fossil fuel energy is remains the best way to head off Climate Change. 

b) Nuclear electricity is the only non-fossil source of energy available in the quantities needed to keep the world's mega-cities alive.

c) Since no one - anywhere - is willing to go back to the hardships of a pre-fossil fuel lifestyle, we will have to at least duplicate the fossil-fuel lifestyle but substituting nuclear electricity's energy.  We will have to make electricity in unprecedented quantities to end Climate Change.  No toy windmills next time. 

d) Living better electrically when climate change hits.  Most of our plans to cope with Climate Change's problems depend upon lots of additional low-cost nuclear electric energy. 

What You and Your Family Are Counting On: Toilet-to-tap drinking water purification - good to the last drop? (you'll want all the electricity those sterilization ozoneators can use for this one) ... Hybrid cars - (A 40 mile overnight charge-up will easily take 40kWh - as much electricity as a whole-house air conditioner cycling 24/7.) ... powerful air conditioning for potentially deadly Global-Warmed super-summers ... lots of cheap electric heat - not expensive gas or oil - for weird northern winters ... very clean low-CO2 synthetic gasoline, diesel and jet fuel ... water desalination plants ... and the hundreds of other things you are already powering with electricity.

e) To shift from a carbon powered economy to a nuclear electricity powered economy we will have to nearly double our electricity production by about 2025.  We are currently producing about 760 gigaWatts of electricity - already a marginal-shortage situation during summers - and will need about 1,400 gigaWatts by 2025. 

f) We can build up our nuclear electricity energy sources several different ways at the same time:

    1. Quickest: Upgrade Coal Plants to Pebble Bed Nuclear.  (Coal Yard Nukes)

    2. Quick: Inexpensive Pebble Bed Hybrid 500megaWatt Nuclear Power Plants.       

    3. Slowest: Expensive Conventional 1,600megaWatt Nuclear Power Plants.

g) The Coal Yard Nuke Option: Reasons why we should not shut down, but rather, upgrade existing coal-burning power plants.

Existing power plants:

already wired to our cities - NO NEW TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAYS NEEDED

already have cooling water - NO NEW RIPARIAN OR PRIOR APPROPRIATION RIGHTS NEEDED

already have access roads - NO NEW ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS NEEDED

already have railroad tracks - NO NEW RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAYS NEEDED

usually have ample land for several additional future units - NO NEW LAND NEEDED

no construction delays - THEY ARE ALREADY RUNNING, CAN CONTINUE TO RUN DURING UPGRADE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION

already have experienced workers - FEW NEW WORKERS WOULD BE NEEDED, EXISTING 'UPGRADED' EMPLOYEES WOULD BE BETTER PAID

The thermodynamic efficiency of a coal plant's three stage steam turbine makes them an extremely valuable asset.  To throw them away in an environmental frenzy would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Conventional nuclear plants have two stage turbines and are considered the SUVs of the power plant world.  (In the nuclear electricity world, "mileage" is defined as thousand thermal megaWatt-days per ton of uranium. It ranges from 40 to 110.) 

Burn-up. A measure of the fission energy generated by a mass of fuel in a reactor usually given at the time of discharge from the reactor, measured in units of thermal megawatt-days per kilogram or thousand thermal megawatt-days per metric ton.  It is normally quoted in megawatt–days per metric ton of uranium metal or its equivalent (MWd/MTU)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnup 

 h) The confluence of so many essential power plant resources at one location means that the chances are excellent that eventually there will be a 'big breeder' nuclear power plant at that site after the fossil fuel plant is worn out.  A coal-burning plant upgrade is an infrastructure-reinforcing investment.

i) If we built nothing but new nuclear, what would we do with all the existing fossil-fuel burning power plants we now have? This is a major economic and grid logistics question no one is asking.  Many have 30 or more years of productive and profitable life remaining.  This is the most important consideration when second and third world countries think about ending their Global Warming CO2.

j) Our government is about to create needless chronic severe electricity shortages.  We must continue to get what electricity we can out of our existing electrical generating facilities by upgrading them to nuclear now.  Otherwise, carbon laws will soon cause hundreds of our smaller, older, and less clean power plants to be shut down and dismantled forever while their large, long build-time nuclear replacements are tied up forever in endless court battles.

k) Cooling water advantages of upgrading existing fossil fuel power plants to nuclear and adding new hybrid nuclear power plants are significant.  Re-use of existing cooling water sites combined with the nuclear pebble's water-frugal heat provides a thermodynamically sound way the United States can increase the proportion of it's nuclear power plant fleet while avoiding the conventional reactor cooling problems France runs into during their summer heat waves. 

The worse Global Warming becomes, the more critical the conventional nuclear reactor cooling water issue will become.  Thermoelectric electricity generation in the United States currently accounts for 39% of it's total fresh water withdrawal and 3% of it's total water evaporation.  The less efficient conventional nuclear plants (less of its heat is being turned into electricity, more into cooling water vapor), running about 500°F cooler than coal plants, consume about 125% as much cooling water per kiloWatt hour. 

 

Coal2Nuclear ____________________________________________________________  top  

 

Discussion

Power plants are, by far, the biggest source of Global Warming CO2

IF NOT POWER PLANTS, WHAT?

Upgrading the world's power plants is the best place to begin.  At 11 billion Tons of CO2 every year, they produce about three times more CO2 than the world's next biggest CO2 polluter group, our 600,000,000 cars and trucks.  Power plants are "sitting duck" mega-CO2 emitters.  They are ideal mega-mitigation candidates in all respects.  Their coal yards can provide ample space for both conversion reactor facilities for their large, newer units and coal space for their smaller "legacy" coal burners.  Each individual plant provides hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year.  Nuclear electricity now costs less to produce than electricity from coal.  They've got the money and, with a favorable political climate, should want to convert to nuclear as fast as they can.

The IPCC (Working Group III) has identified the world's 5,000 biggest power plants we simply can't avoid upgrading.  That makes it a reasonable task we can complete in several years if we really want to. 

5,000 multi-unit plants means at least 20,000 reactors will have to be built.  The magic of America's "Arsenal Of Democracy" in action again:  Project Merlin

IF NOT US, WHO?

Like the Roosevelt power projects of the great depression, our country needs additional power projects now to prepare us for what is coming.  Roosevelt's electricity program of the '30s - Hoover Dam, etc. - saved our bacon just a few years later by powering our industrial "Arsenal Of Democracy."  Now, 70 years later, we are facing two simultaneous energy emergencies: Climate Change and Peak Oil.  We will need more than twice the electricity we are currently producing to survive intact.  Massive amounts of "baseload" CO2-free electricity - the kind of electricity only nuclear energy provides.  Peak Oil Mitigation  More

Worth learning about:

The Big ENERGY and CO2 picture.  IPCC Global Energy Flows (United Nations world fuels overview):  2004 .pdf  How much of each kind of energy remains?  How is it being used?  How much CO2 does it make?  It's all in one simple, free color chart.  Downloadable & printable.  Look closely at the yellow "Uranium 238 Fertility" bar.  Missing is the (undeveloped) "Thorium 232 Fertility" bar.  It would be three times larger than the "Uranium 238 fertility" bar since there is three times as much Thorium.  Missing also are the largely undeveloped "unconventional oils:" Canadian Oil Sands, Venezuelan Heavy Oil Sludge, and Oil Shale rock.

Note: The IPCC just announced they will release their 5th assessment in 2014.  Why so long?

 

Coal2Nuclear ____________________________________________________________  top  

 

Hit Counter