Will renewable investments save more CO2

The Environment America Research & Policy Center of California has just published a report titled Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming.

The Environment America Research & Policy Center of California is a non-profit outfit which has a mission statement which states

We are dedicated to protecting California’s air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision makers, and help Californians make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives.

All this sounds relentlessly high-minded, but as the old saying goes

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Ignorance and incompetence can screw up the best of intentions. So how much do the report authors know? The report is written by Travis Madsen and Tony Dutzik Frontier Group, and Bernadette Del Chiaro and Ron Sargent of the Environment America Research & Policy Center.

Well it turns out that none of the report's authors has been educated or has worked in professions that would help them to understand the technological or economic issues involved. This by itself hardly demonstrates that they are wrong, but it does show that we should carefully review their arguments before we accept their conclusions.

In order to assess how well our authors did we turn their discussion of their methods, and there we find

We use lifecycle carbon dioxide emission rates per kWh for a variety of renewable technologies and new nuclear reactors from a 2008 report by Stanford scientist Mark Jacobson.

Jacobson's assessment is flawed by the assumption that use of nuclear power will inevitably lead to a nuclear war every 30 years and that the CO2 emitted by cities torched by nuclear blasts should be included with nuclear CO2 emissions. While Jacobson's approach is imaginative, arguments in its favor are very weak. Any conclusions based on Jacobson's implausible assumptions must be taken with very large grains of salt.

If we disregard the Mark Jacobson's very dubious and controversial assertions about nuclear CO2 emissions, then we are left with an assertion that

Nuclear Power Is More Costly than Other Forms of Emission-Free Electricity.

Also

Vast amounts of clean energy are available – now – at far less cost.

Where would this energy come from? According to "Generation Failure" those sources include

* Energy Efficiency
* Combined Heat and Power generators
* The Sun and Wind

First we should note that they chose to aggregate energy efficiency, with CHPs and renewables and weigh their combined cost and CO2 savings against nuclear power. The report claims

End Use Efficiency, based on estimates by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy of 4.6 cents per kWh total resource cost, inflated to 2018 dollars...

The American Council's report concludes

These results serve to confirm that the costs of saved energy are far less than the costs of new conventional fossil fuels and alternative energy sources and remain consistent over time.

A more fair minded approach might look at aggregation energy efficiency and nuclear as well, because presumably efforts to achieve energy efficiency would continue with a nuclear investment. Thus efficiency may be cost-effective in terms of carbon savings, but carbon-free energy still needs to be generated, and efficiency will still be cost effective whether teamed with either carbon free nuclear power or with other energy sources.

A second source of supposed carbon savings would come from the use of

Combined heat and power (CHP), derived from estimates for recovered heat industrial CHP, combined cycle industrial CHP, and building-scale CHP by the Rocky Mountain Institute,

While Rocky Mountain Institute holds CHP would save CO2 emissions, CHPs, even with natural gas is not nearly effective as nuclear energy. This can be illustrated by a comparison between Denmark and France. While it is well known that Denmark uses wind power, what is less well known is that

Most electricity in Denmark is produced by large CHP plants that also supply heat to district heating systems and institutions in major cities. More than 50% of the space heating supply in Denmark comes from district heating systems. In 2000 combined heating and power facilities generated 60% of the electricity for domestic supply and approximately 75% of the heat supplied to district heating systems.

Since 80% of French electricity is produced by nuclear plants, a comparison of the French and Danish CO2 emissions would give us a clue about the relative effectiveness of Danish use of Wind plus CHP verses the French use of nuclear power, In 2008 the emissions from Nuclear powered France ran about 6.2 tons per person. in contrast Danish CO2 emissions equaled 9.9 tons per person, over 50% more than France. Thus clearly nuclear power offers a significant advantage over the CHP approach in savings CO2 emissions. Other high nuclear nations like Sweden which produces 50% of its electricity with nuclear also show superior CO2 reductions.

The case for the use of biomass in not improved by the fact that Denmark uses a significant amount of biomass in the production of its electricity.

In 2000, biomass contributed 45.1% of the energy production from renewable sources; waste combustion 35.6%; wind 18.7%.

Thus policies requiring the burning of biomass and refuse to produce electricity and heat do not appear to significantly lower Danish CO2 output.

Thus we are left with Generation Failure's assertion that vast amounts of low cost carbon free energy are available and a far lower cost than nuclear. This assertion is based on a California Energy Commission Report. While that report is not available on line, a slightly earlier version of that report, published in late 2007 is.

That report states offers a levelized cost for advanced nuclear of from 91.12 to 118.25. This tracks closely with estimated 2016 nuclear levelized costs of 107 based on Energy Information Agency 2009 data. There are however discrepancies between the California estimate of levelized cost for wind, and the EIA's estimate. The California estimate for class 5 wind was between 61.38 and 84.24. The estimate for the levelized cost for wind in 2016 based on EIA data is 141.5. The apparent discrepancy is that most wind generating facilities have a lower capacity factor than the class 5 winds the California Energy Commission noted.

Other renewable resources which which the California Energy Commission in its 2007 report include various forms of solar, which it estimated to have levelized cost far higher than those of nuclear. In this respect the California report coincides with the EIA data.

Estimations of the future costs of energy producing facilities tends to be more than a little like predictions of the future weather. The further out one goes, the more inaccurate the guess is likely to be.

It would appear then that "Generation Failure" has failed to the quality of the California environment. Instead it give us a highly distorted picture of the carbon emissions of nuclear power as well as its relative cost. "Generation Failure" should be regarded yet another product of the anti-nuclear propaganda machine.

The efficiency hoax, energy planning and greenwashing

Sometimes I am reminded that I should not take myself too seriously. After laying out a series of dimensions by which future energy plans need to be evaluated, but I neglected to set up a conceptual framework for evaluating a major feature of renewable or green energy plans,
that is the role of efficiency. Last May the Economist noted:

Almost all blueprints for tackling global warming assume that energy efficiency will have a huge role to play. Nicholas Stern devoted a whole chapter to it in the report he wrote on climate change for the British government. In the greenest of futures mapped out by the International Energy Agency, a think-tank financed by rich countries, greater efficiency accounts for two-thirds of emissions averted. The McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), the research arm of the consultancy, thinks that energy efficiency could get the world halfway towards the goal, espoused by many scientists, of keeping the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 550 parts per million.

The Economist also notes that America has become more energy efficient since 1973 a year in which we spent 12% of our gross domestic product on energy. Recently that figure has fallen to 7%. Of course some of that decline in energy use was due to the transfer of energy intensive industries (and jobs) to other countries. Green experts like Amory Lovins insists that an enormous amount of energy use savings that could be accomplished through greater energy efficiency.

Because so much can be done with just technical efficiency, there's a great deal of flexibility -- in how and where people live, what houses look like, how we get around, what our settlement patterns are. For example, it's very straightforward to have uncompromised, normal-sized family cars achieving upwards of 100 miles a gallon, with improved safety and excellent economics. We know how to triple the efficiency of trucks, and we can probably do even better on planes, I think by a factor of six or so better than now.

According to Lovins incredible energy savings that practically pay for themselves as soon as they are installed are available for the American home.

My own house uses 1 percent the normal amount of space- and water-heating energy, and 10 percent the normal amount of electricity. The efficiency upgrades took ten months to pay for themselves in 1983. But if we were building the house now, we'd be able to save another two-thirds of the remaining electricity, and it would probably cost even less to build.

Quite obviously Lovins does not spend much time watching plasma TV's. Lovins doesn't have time to watch TV because it takes all of his time to dream up such bullshit. As a householder I did my own home energy efficiency program in the 1980's and 90's. And while my wife and I were able to effect substantial energy savings we never came close to the energy reduction Lovins claims to have realized. Nor did the energy efficiencies pay for themselves in anything like 10 months.

If my readers are wondering about energy savings investments, solar water heaters would be high on my list for many localities. But there are areas of the country where a cloudy climate makes solar hot water heaters a bad investment, even with tax and power company subsidies. Solar hot water heaters would be a good investment in Snowmass, Colorado, but 10 months is not to believed. Lovins heated the water with the assistance of a second system, one while relied on a lot of bullshit to supplement heat from the sun. A payback period of 10 years would not be unusual for a solar hot water heater. But in some cloudy localities it might take 30 years. The solar heating project in a cloudy community might never pay for itself. Thus when the eco-cheerleaders at Treehugger want to put solar hot water heaters on every roof, they reveal themselves to be exceedingly ill informed. Local factors play a far bigger role that Amory Lovins allows in determining the payback time for energy saving technology.

There are other factors that may differ within localities that can effect the value of efficiency. For example, in hot climates shade trees have a cooling effect on buildings, but if you have shade trees, the shade effects the efficiency of solar hot water heaters. While ground source heat pumps are more efficient than air source heat pumps, they are far more expensive to install, and far more expensive to repair.

In addition, unanticipated factors may negatively impact on energy efficiency. For example, the clay soil of North Texas expands during rainy periods and contracts in dry weather. The soil movement can damage home foundations, and this in turn can damaged the effectiveness of home insulation. Thus investments in home energy efficiency might in Dallas include foundation repairs. Doubling home insulation might not pay for itself if the shifting foundation has unseated double pane windows, allowing drafts to enter the home at numerous points. Even repairing the windows might not help, since the next time the foundation shifts, the windows would become unseated again.

The quest for energy efficiency thus becomes intertwined with a form of wisdom that is in no small measure based on knowledge of local conditions. This would not be entirely entailed in the concept of distributionism. For example, if solar hot water heating would be in efficient in some locality water can still be heated with electricity from a centralized power plant.

Some energy inefficiencies, work through because local wisdom cannot be assumed and in often lacking. Witness the placement of solar panels facing North. If the stories I have encountered are any indicator, this is not uncommon. Advocates of energy efficiency simply do not take into account the North facing solar panel.

This now leads us to US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED program and Henry Gifford. The USGBC is an organization that certifies buildings as energy efficient. The LEED program is the program that tags building as efficient. We should expect that energy use in certified buildings has been checked, and certificates issues based of actual performance. This is, of course, a silly notion. People this is the United States, the nation where where bankers can qualify people who have a $14,000 annual income for $500,000 a year home loans by resorting to outright fraud. Where Wall Street Bankers can ignore the massively fraudulent basis of millions of sub prime mortgage loans, can package them as bonds, and sell the bonds to unsuspecting investors. This is America, the nation where bond rating companies can overlook the fact that bonds were being backed by large numbers of mortgages that were in default because the first payment had not been made. Despite these difficulties the bond rating companies issued Triple A ratings for the toxic bonds. This is America where thousands of people can commit multi-trillion dollar crimes, and none of them seems likely to go to prison. This is America where the people who allowed the theft of trillions, the loss of retirement income for millions of workers, and the ruin of the world's economy, not only face no consequences for their negligance, but end up with titles like Federal Reserve Chairman. This is the United States where a Con Man can become a MacArthur Genius. This is the United States where Amory Lovins can tell us that he cut his electricity use by 9o% and he got his investment payback in 10 months. His entire energy system cost Lovins'$6,000 more than a standard household heating system would have cost. I am not making that up.

The USGBC does not check on energy use in certified buildings. A building is efficient by USGBC standards if the USGBC thinks it is. Recently however the USGBC did do a study of their certified buildings, or at least some of them. The buildings could not be described as a representative sample. Further, some if the buildings in the original data set were excluded because they used too much energy.

Brendan Owen of USGBC of its first cut at data on certified building efficiency, said

I was really kind of cringing about what kind of data we would get. And, when Mark
and I started talking about what this survey, and what this study was going to be, he
asked some pretty pointed questions about what were we going to do with it, and in the back of my head it was, you know, if it’s bad, we’re certainly not going to tell
anybody. And, and we’re going to fix the problem and that will be good. But I knew
he wouldn’t let that happen, so in the front of my head was, if it’s bad I’m going to let Cathy [Cathy Turner, the senior analyst for the New Buildings Institute] publish just her graphs, with no explanation, and it’ll be so statistically impenetrable to anybody who could actually articulate what was going on, that it wouldn’t matter, because they, you know, could only talk to somebody else who could understand them, and there’s not many of those out there. So, the fact of, the delightful fact of the results of the study being what I would consider to be overwhelmingly positive considering how bad I thought it was going to come out, are pretty remarkable.” However, for a number of reasons, the publicized figure is not only wrong, it appears that the reverse is actually true.

Well it helps if you you manipulate the numbers. The purpose of the USGBC is not to encourage the development of energy efficient buildings. It is not to do or encourage energy efficiency research. It is not to inform people about who has energy efficient buildings. USGBC Chairman Rick Fedrizzi said

"We realized we were getting the messaging wrong, leading with the environmental story. We had to lead with the business case."

Building owner Henry Gifford (pictured above) tells the reat of the story:

Required Reading for Steve Chu and Barack Obama

House of Lords,
Committee on Science and Technology - Second Report
July 5, 2005.

Chapter 3: Energy efficiency and energy demand

3.1. One of Government's fundamental goals is to promote economic growth and prosperity. For this to be combined with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions there will have to be a "decoupling" of economic growth from its environmental impacts. Such decoupling was advanced as an objective by both British and Swedish Governments, in the joint letter sent by the Prime Minister and his Swedish counterpart, Mr Persson, to the European Commission in February 2003.[25] The object of this chapter is to analyse some of the arguments underpinning this objective.

3.2. Underpinning the discussion of "decoupling" is the progressive fall in the energy intensity (that is, energy use per unit of GDP) of developed countries. Data provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA), itself established in 1974 in the wake of the oil crisis, show that the ratio of total primary energy supply to GDP (or "energy intensity") in IEA members has fallen by more than a third since 1973.[26] This is presented by some as evidence that "partial decoupling" of energy use from environmental degradation has already occurred.[27] As Lord Whitty said, "we have decoupled in the relative sense quite dramatically on energy and I see no reason why we should not decouple in an absolute sense on energy as well" (Q 710). Figure 6, which derives from the DTI, illustrates the extent of such "partial decoupling" in the United Kingdom since 1970.

3.3. However, while Figure 6 illustrates the changing relationship between GDP and energy use, it does not in itself demonstrate any reduction in environmental degradation. When emissions are added to the equation, the picture becomes more complicated. Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between per capita GDP, energy use and emissions in four countries—the United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Sweden. It reveals significant differences in the relationship between GDP and energy use—indeed, the United Kingdom has the lowest energy intensity of the four. However, there are much more dramatic differences in emissions. Australia and Sweden, for instance, have almost identical per capita energy consumption, but Australia's per capita emissions are almost three times Sweden's. Thus while energy intensity may play a part in "decoupling", the most dramatic gains are likely to be made in addressing the carbon intensity of the fuel mix.

3.4. Moreover, the nature of the link between energy consumption and GDP is in fact the subject of considerable debate among economists.[28] In particular, there is a school of thought, deriving from the work of the nineteenth century economist Stanley Jevons, which argues that while increased energy efficiency at the microeconomic level may lead to a reduction in energy use, at the macroeconomic level it in fact leads to an increase in overall energy use. This proposition is known as the "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", after the economists Daniel Khazzoom and Leonard Brookes, who independently published papers putting forward this argument in 1979-80. We received evidence on this debate from a number of sources, including the Institution of Electrical Engineers and A Power for Good Ltd, as well as from Dr Brookes himself.

3.5. Dr Brookes' argument is that for any resource, including energy, "to offer greater utility per unit is for it to enjoy a reduction in its implicit price". Cheaper energy has two effects: the substitution of energy for other factors of production, which are now relatively more expensive, and the release of income which can then be reinvested in new production capacity, and so on. As a result, Dr Brookes argues, developed countries have, since the Industrial Revolution, seen "rising energy productivity outstripped by rising total factor productivity, hence rising energy consumption alongside rising energy productivity".

3.6. A further consequence of this argument is that while rises in the price of energy may stimulate improvements in energy efficiency, such improvements, rather than leading to a lasting fall in energy use, may serve to accommodate the price rise, with the result that energy consumption stabilises at a higher level than it otherwise would.

3.7. The "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", though it has not been proven empirically, is consistent with classical economic theory, and offers a plausible explanation of patterns of energy use in developed economies. As Professor Paul Ekins, head of the Environment Group at the Policies Studies Institute and co-Director of the new United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC), told us, "In the economics literature it is … well known that increased efficiency in the use of a resource leads over time to greater use of that resource and not less use of it" (Q 261).[29] This might explain, for instance, why there appears to be no example of a developed society that has succeeded in combining sustained reductions in energy consumption with economic growth. Mr Alan Meier, of the IEA, referred to "several countries that, for brief periods, reduced their electricity consumption or their energy consumption"—often in response to short-term supply crises—but such reductions in demand have never been sustained. This does not mean that sustained reductions in energy consumption are impossible—simply that it is yet to be demonstrated that they are possible. (Q 424)

3.8. We pressed a number of witnesses on the macroeconomic effects of energy efficiency, but did not receive convincing answers. Mr Meier openly admitted that "I always have to retreat to a micro analysis here" (Q 416). Lord Whitty also argued at the microeconomic level, as did his officials, though without Mr Meier's acknowledgement that there might be difficulties in so doing (QQ 717, 9-15). At this microeconomic level, for instance in the case of an individual household, savings that are made through, for instance, improved insulation, release money that will be spent on other goods. These will entail some energy consumption, creating a "rebound effect", but in practice the money that has been released, which was previously being spent essentially on either primary fuel (e.g. gas or oil) or on electricity, is unlikely to be spent on anything equally energy intensive.[30] Absolute reductions in energy consumption are thus possible at the microeconomic level.

3.9. However, this does not mean that an analogy can be made with macroeconomic effects. Apart from anything else, the substitution effects observable at the macroeconomic level cannot be replicated by households, where demand for a range of goods is relatively inelastic. If energy becomes, in effect, cheaper, there is very limited scope for the individual simply to divert money, say from food to energy. A business, on the other hand, could respond to cheaper energy by deliberately increasing consumption—using a more energy intensive process, which would allow savings to be made elsewhere, for instance in manpower.

3.10. We have recently learnt that the UKERC is proposing to commission work on the both the "rebound effect" and the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate under its programme of technology and policy assessments. Results should be available in 2006. While this is welcome, pending the outcome of this work the possibility remains that many of the arguments about the extent of "decoupling" may, at least so far as business and industry are concerned, be fundamentally misplaced. Many improvements in energy efficiency, particularly within industry, are simply products of technical and economic development—investment in new machinery, for example, that optimises productivity across the spectrum, including energy consumption. What the Minister described as the "relative decoupling" of energy use from economic growth may thus simply reflect the fact that greater efficiency in the use of energy is one of the drivers of that growth. We have already noted, with regard to the evidence from Defra, regarding "real relative savings", that savings against a "what might have been" scenario are not real savings at all.

3.11. The Government's proposition that improvements in energy efficiency can lead to significant reductions in energy demand and hence in greenhouse gas emissions remains the subject of debate among economists. The "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", while not proven, offers at least a plausible explanation of why in recent years improvements in "energy intensity" at the macroeconomic level have stubbornly refused to be translated into reductions in overall energy demand. The Government have so far failed to engage with this fundamental issue, appearing to rely instead on an analogy between micro- and macroeconomic effects.

3.12. We welcome the UKERC project to investigate the "rebound effect" and the empirical basis for the "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate", and recommend that the Government, in parallel with the establishment of a more robust measure for energy efficiency, take full account of the project's progress and results in developing future policies in this area.

Cost-effectiveness

3.13. A related issue is the Government's use of the term "cost-effective". The meaning of the term is of course dependent on circumstances, time horizons, and so on, but few of these subtleties are reflected in the Government's use of the term. We are all, as individuals and businesses, free to choose where to invest our resources. In the case of a business, for any action to be "cost-effective", it is not enough that it is cheap, or even that it pays for itself over an arbitrary period—one year, say, or five years. Rather, it must represent the optimal use of resources at that moment. This point was forcefully made to us by Dr Brookes:

"Fuel or any other source of energy—and indeed any other economic resource—cannot be used with greater economic efficiency than in a system in which all the resources involved are used with maximum economic efficiency" (p 181).

3.14. It follows that if a business can, by investing a sum of money in energy efficiency, achieve a return on its investment within three years, but by investing the same sum of money in new plant or processes can achieve that return within two years, investment in energy efficiency is not in itself "cost-effective". As Mr Matthew Farrow, of the Confederation of British Industry, said, "it is a competitive world out there", and any proposal for investment "has to be compared against whatever else it can be used for in the business" (Q 572). It is notable that the only period in recent time in which significant reductions in energy use were achieved was the late 1970s, when the economic imperative was enormously strengthened by the oil crises. Significant rises in energy prices today might similarly encourage investment in energy efficiency—but at serious cost to the economy as a whole, and, in the absence of effective measures to reduce the cost to low-income households, to the Government's legally binding commitment to reducing fuel poverty.

3.15. This confusion over cost-effectiveness is typified by the widely reported statement that there is an overall cost-effective potential to reduce energy use by 30 percent. This derives from the 2002 Energy Review[31] by the Performance and Innovation Unit (now the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit), and is repeated in the Action Plan and in the Government's written evidence to this inquiry (p 11). But as Professor Ian Fells pointed out, these savings are simply not being achieved—because, he argued, "they are the technical potential for saving rather than the economic". Savings that are not "economic" cannot be regarded as "cost-effective".

3.16. On the other hand, there are circumstances in which "cost-effectiveness" may not by itself be an optimal test of investment decisions. In the building sector, for instance, the assessment of cost-effectiveness is distorted by the predominance in this country of "build for sale" development, as distinct from the "build and manage" approach which dominates elsewhere in Europe. This leads the developer to minimise capital expenditure, even where this increases the cost of subsequent occupation of the building. For example, at the point of installation electrical resistive heating is the cheapest form of heating. However, it is associated with both the highest carbon emissions and the highest running-costs, which makes it a significant contributor both to climate change and fuel poverty.[32] The division between the interests of the builder, and the ongoing interests of the subsequent occupants and society at large, means that merely commercial decisions on "cost-effectiveness" are unlikely to be optimal, and Government may have to intervene by means of regulation. Similar issues arise in the rented housing sector, where the economic interest of a landlord is to minimise expenditure on capital and maintenance.

3.17. There are also circumstances in which longer time-horizons are appropriate in making investment decisions. The public sector is subject to rules set out in the Treasury's Green Book, which is based on a 25-year horizon to compare all discounted costs, incomes and benefits. This is intended to avoid perverse decisions based solely on first cost without considering lifetime costs.

3.18. We recommend that the Government exercise caution in using the potentially misleading term "cost-effective" to describe investment in energy efficiency. They should seek to demonstrate realism as to what is economically achievable by means of private sector investment in energy efficiency.

3.19. We further recommend that the Government promote the application of the Green Book guidelines, encouraging decision-makers at all levels, including local authorities, housing associations, PFI projects and other private sector providers to the public sector, to consider lifetime costs in committing expenditure to long-term capital projects.

Greener Than A Thousand Suns

The wikipedia notes several definitions of Green Power:

An alternate term for renewable energy.
Energy generated from sources which do not produce pollutants (e.g., solar, wind, and wave energies).
Energy generated from sources that are considered environmentally friendly (e.g., hydro (water), solar (sun), biomass (landfill), or wind)
Energy generated from sources that produce low amounts of pollution.
Energy that is produced and used in ways that produce relatively less environmental impacts.

To these definitions we ought to add to further green dimensions, energy return on energy invested, and green land and water use principles.
Thus the green potential of LFTR technology can be illustrated by comparing its "greenness" to the the "greenness" of solar electrical generation systems.

Surprisingly the greenness of solar power cannot be taken for granite. The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) of solar cells is at best about 10 over their life time, and when you add the energy consumed in the manufacture of materials used in large scale solar cell arrays and during the construction of those arrays, the EROEI of PV generated energy becomes even lower. Indeed it has been argued that the EROEI of PV technology may be as low as 1 to 1. There is some debate whether PV technology produces more energy than it consumes. It is quite clear that at present PV technology is not economically viable and would not be used for electrical production were in not for a system of generous state subsidies there would be PV would not be in play at all as an electrical producing technology. If we add to the discussion about the question of green land use practices, the greenness of widespread use of PV electrical generation technologies clearly can be questioned.

In the case of concentrated solar power (CSP), the potential for a positive return on energy invested is clearer. Although it cannot be said that there is a great deal of evidence, the EROEI of concentrated solar is reported to be about 10. Thus CSP is green by EROEI standards. But what about land use? Austra calculates that by using its technology a 92 by 92 mile square or 8464 square miles or 5.4 million acres would be sufficient to supply the entire United States with electricity at its current rate of consumption. David Rutledge, using real world data from Navada Solar One project land use asserts that it would take 11,600 square miles to supply current US electrical requirements. Bernadette Del Chiaro, Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik claim about 10,000 square miles.

It should be noted that the general replacement of fossil fuels by electricity in economic sectors like transportation and process heating, could easily double solar land use requirements. Del Chiaro, Sarah Payne and Tony Dutzik claim that the land area disturbed by solar installations would be comparable to that disturbed by coal mining:

more than 9,000 square miles of the United States has been disturbed by coal mining over the nation’s history. And at least 1,644 square miles are disturbed by current mining operations

We may not have an entire picture of the land use impact of solar installations. In addition to the installations themselves, land would be occupied by electrical gathering systems, electrical substations, and high voltage electrical lines. 

There is little doubt then that at least 10,000 square miles of fragile desert habitat and quite possible twice that amount could be impacted by a full blown national solar electric scheme. Thus from a land use point of view, some "Greens" would seem willing to sacrifice green land use valuse in the cause of solar generated electricity, while others are not. Sandy Bahr of the Sierra Club states,

"We support solar power, but it is an industrial activity and putting it next to a wilderness area just is not a good idea".

There you have the Green dilemma.

Water conservation is a green value. Water use in concentrated solar power systems is almost completely ignored, but Joe Gelt points out that water use in concentrated solar is greater than that of coal and similar to nuclear per MWh generated:

a coal fired plant uses 110 to 300 gallons per megawatt hour; a nuclear plant uses between 500 and 1100 gallons/MWh; and a solar parabolic trough plant uses 760 -920 gallons/MWh.

Gelt adds:

Efforts to increase water efficiency in solar energy operations involve modifying the conventional cooling tower. For example, dry desert air could be used instead of water to cool the operation. This, however, would greatly increase building costs because enormous cooling towers would need to be constructed. Also relying on air to cool would not cool the water circulating through the plant to a low enough temperature for peak performance, decreasing the efficiency of the plant.

The Southwest has already has a significant water shortage, and climate projections are for the Southwest to become even dryer during the coming years. The only possible source of enough water for desert based solar thermal power facilities would be to withdrawal water from agricultural use and to transfer it to power production. This would in turn raise food prices in the southwest, and thus would paradoxically constitute a subsidy paid by poor food consumers who would pay higher food prices, to solar electrical producers who would profit from from nation wide electrical sales. Social justice is presumably a Green goals.   

Within the Southwest, concentrated solar power is not environment friendly.  It does not conform to green land and water use principles, and CSP water use requirements would indirectly make the life of the poor in the Southwest worst rather than better.  

Moving concentrated solar electrical production out of the Southwest is not an option, because solar electrical generation is highly dependent on cloudless skies.  There is ample reason then to view there hither to unquestioned "greenness" of concentrated solar generated electricity as open to question.  

In contrast as I have already pointed out there are many aspects of LFTR greenness.  Thorium is a sustainable energy source, with the potential to provide people all of the energy they need for millions of years.   There is already a great deal of Thorium above ground in the form of mine tailings, enough to supply human demands for hundreds of years.  Thorium energy conversion is 100 to 200 time more efficient, that current uranium reactor technology.   LFTR reactor designs use materials more efficiently than conventional reactor designs to.  Recycling of existing coal fired power plants sites for LFTR use has the potential to create energy savings of 50% to 75% compared to start from scratch power plant construction.  LFTR produce little   
to no nuclear waste, thus greatly diminishing energy inputs into waste control.  Material outputs from nuclear daughter products would be an energy savings, that would be unique to LFTR technology.  It is clear then that the LFTR EROEI would from somewhere in the three figures at its lowest on up. From the EROEI stand point, the LFTR would be the ultimate in energy efficiency.

Since most of the chemical output of the LFTR is already recyclable, and some materials processing and separation is expected to be a normal part of reactor operation, the LFTR is expected to produce little unused byproduct.  There are existing markets for some radioactive byproducts and other markets can be developed.  Molten Salt Reactors have been proposed for the disposal of transuranium nuclear waste.  Thus the potential exists to completely eliminate 

not only their own nuclear waste, but also the nuclear waste of conventional reactors  through the use of LFTRs.  Thus the LFTR hasthe potential to be a 100% pollution free technology.

The LFTR has the potential to be very parsimonious in its land use. First I have proposed the recycling of existing coal power plant sites. It should also be noted that much of the landused by nuclear power facilities is actually used as a land buffer for the mitigation of accidental release of radioactive products. Thus up to 95% of the land occupied by a LFTR facility may actually be set aside for conservation purposes. Compared to CSP facilities, LFTRs would have a very modest land use footprint.  Underground placement of the reactor would further restrict visual intrusions, as well as add to reactor safety defenses.  

The LFTR would typically runs at a far higher temperature than conventional reactors. This higher temperature could be used to improve energy efficiency in electrical output. Thus a smaller percentage of the heat produced by LFTR would need to be dissipated by water cooling, In addition most potential LFTR sites are located in areas which do not experience chronic water shortages. Water conservation measure could be applied if needed, and water conservation facilities would already exist at some coal fired plant sites. If needed LFTRs could be air cooled. In the Southwest, LFTRs could be located near the sea coast, an option not available for CSP..

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is by definitions green. The LFTR is green by the principles of green engineering. The LFTR conforms to the goal of green chemistry by not producing polluting waste. There is little doubt that the LFTR is greener than CSP in terms of energy efficiency, land use and water conservation, and could potentially be as pollution free as well. The LFTR thus is by conventional definitions of green, greener than all forms of solar power.

Light Water Reactor EROEI

Alvin Weinberg invented and patented the Light Water Reactor. My father made an important contribution to its development. Both Dr. Weinberg and my father, like other scientist they worked with, never regarded the LWR as the best way to make nuclear power.

Light Water Reactors are not very efficient producers of energy. Although potentially 100% of uranium could be either burned as nuclear fuel, or converted to nuclear fuel, only a tiny fraction, less than 1% of the energy locked in uranium is released inside light water reactors. U-235 is the primary fuel of light water reactors, and only 0.7% of natural Uranium is U-235. Because the normal hydrogen in light water tends to consume non-trivial amounts of neutrons in reactors, the U-235 content of nuclear fuel has to be increased to 3% or even 5% of the reactor uranium. The enrichment process requires large amounts of energy.

First, because of the nature of the uranium enrichment process, nearly 30% of the U-235 present in natural uranium does not get included in the enrichment product. So 30% of the potential energy of the U-235 present in natural uranium never makes it to a reactor. Some breeding of U-238 takes place in inside a reactor. The result close to 3% of the U-238 is converted into reactor-grade plutonium. Now reactor-grade plutonium is not very good nuclear fuel in a thermal-spectrum reactor. It does not burn well in LWRs, and when the reactivity of the fuel can no longer support a chain reaction inside a light water reactor, nearly 20% of it is left. Another 12% 27% of the original U-235 is left.

Thus light-water reactors only extract about 0.6% of the energy present in natural uranium. The rest of the energy goes into two piles. One marked “Depleted Uranium”, and the other marked “spent reactor fuel”. “Spent reactor fuel”, ironically contains about as much U-235 as natural uranium. The system of electrical generation in Light Water Reactors is to place the reactor inside a high-pressure vessel, heat water with it, turn the hot water into steam (in a BWR) or use the hot water to make steam (in a PWR), and run a turbine with it. The turbine then turns a generator, which produces electricity. This whole, rather complicated system only turns about 1/3rd of the heat produced in a LWR into electricity. Thus 70% of the energy captured by the reactor is lost as waste heat. So of the energy present in natural uranium, 0.2% gets converted into electricity, 99.8% of the energy gets lost.

The light-water reactor system is extraordinarily wasteful in terms of energy. It is also wasteful in terms of uranium. In order to make LWR fuel, 200 pounds of natural uranium gets depleted. 19 pounds of that uranium can go back into a reactor, so over 90% of mined uranium never goes into a reactor. Of those 19 pounds of depleted uranium – almost all U-238 – that goes into a reactor, 18 ½ pounds comes out unchanged. Such is the power generated by splitting the atom, that by using only a very small amount of its potential energy, very useful work gets done.

It is a measure of the inefficiency of light-water reactors, that its “spent fuel” can be removed, remanufactured without changing the fuel ration, and placed in other types of reactors – say the heavy water CANDU reactor, and used like ordinary CANDU nuclear fuel in electrical power generation. But even the CANDU reactor is still not very efficient. For every 200 pounds of uranium used in a CANDU reactor, about 1.4 pounds actually generates energy or about 0.7% of the energy in natural uranium. From the viewpoint of EROEI (energy returned on energy invested), the CANDU reactor is a better deal than light-water reactors. First because uranium does not have to be enriched before it goes into CANDU reactors. And secondly, because the CANDU is a little better at extracting energy from uranium than light-water reactors.

It is clear then that the light-water reactor, a technology that was advanced in the late 1940's and early 1950's primarily for military use, is very inefficient at the task of extracting energy from uranium, and converting it into electricity. Only 0.2%, that is one five hundredth (1/500) of the energy that could potentially be liberated from uranium by the nuclear process, is converted into electricity by the light-water reactor. The liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) can do much better than this.

Matching Efficiency with Nuclear Power

Fow well over 30 years Amory Lovins has been preaching energy efficiency and the use of micro-generated local as opposed to large centralized energy sources. Of course Lovins sees these measures as eliminating the need for nuclear power. But none of these Lovins schemes actually eliminate the need for nuclear power, and attention to them actually can actually make a nuclear system more efficient.

One of the major features of the current electrical generating system is the use of peak load generators. More power is demanded during daytimes than at night. In Southern parts of the United States, more power is used in summer than in winter. Since day demand is greater generators must produce more electricity, and added generators turned on. These added generators, which in some cases may not run for more than a few hours a day, often are fueled by natural gas. Natural gas is more expensive as a fuel, but gas fired generators are also more efficient, and they are very cheap to build compared to coal fired or nuclear generating plants.

Since natural gas generators are cheap to build, but expensive to operate, they make a good match for peak power demands. But in a post carbon economy, natural gas probably cannot be counted on for peak power generation. This leaves a significant gap between base power demands which can be filled by reactors, and the power demands. Reactors are not a good candidate for peak power produces because they are expensive to build. Because of their low generating costs and reliability, electrical produces prefer to leave their nuks on all the time. this would be even more desirable with new nuclear generators. New nuks would need to be kept ruuning at full blast, to generate the money needed to pay off the debts incurred by their construction. No rational reactor owner would assign a new nuclear plant to peak power production. Perhaps older plants could be operated at less than full capacity, and then brought up to full generating capacity as situation demands.

I have already pointed to daytime solar water heating. Solar water heaters are decentralized. Solar water heating lowers day time electrical demand for hot water. Lowering daytime demand is desirable, because it lowers the need for more electricity from daytime peak power sources. Electrical heating water at night is less critical, because electrical demand drops at night.

A second energy move that I gavor is the electrification of transportation. Here again this could tend to improve the day night power demand imbalance. car batteries could be mainly charged at night. This might be encouraged by lower night time electrical rates.

The tiny Mac Mini can make nuclear power work better while saving the world from global warming!

Another seldom noted major source of energy savings can be achieved by making Personal computers far more energy efficient. The technology already exists to do so. Personal computers dan be redesigned to use laptop computer energy savings technology. This has in fact already been done. The Mac Mini computer is notoriously frugal with electrical energy. Banging away at the keyboard, while doing
word processing, the thing can be almost ominously quiet. It is probably drawing only 25 watts, the Mini's fan does not need to be turned on. When unattended it can use as little as 9 watts. Of course if a DVD is slipped into the super drive, energy demand might go up to 28 watts. At that level the fan is a quiet whisper. The Mini may be small, but With a 2 gig dual core 64 bit processor, it has more computing power than a super computer did a generation ago. A Mac Mini has the capacity to run the Mac OS-X operating system, and Windows XP or Vista at the same time, without breaking into a sweat. The typical desk top computer power supply wastes two times more power than the Mac Mini uses when it makes its greatest electrical demands. 130 million PCs sold every year. PC power supplies run up to 500 watts and higher. Yet technology is already in the pipeline that can cut desktop power use below the Mini level.

How much power can be saved by making desk tops computers as efficient as Mac Minis? If every desk top computer currently used in offices and businesses were as efficient as the Mac Mini, we could easily shed the the day time power equivalent of several peak nuclear power plants.

Finally seasonal demand imbalance could be handed by a switch to electrical heating. I have already pointed to air-source heat pumps as having potential for replacing standard heating and cooling systems. An air source heat pump is basically an air conditioner that can be run in reverse. That is it can either pump heat out of a house, by chilling air, or it can pump heat into a house. Since during the heating cycle, heat pumps are chilling outside air, they work better in areas with mild climates. These happen to be the areas where summer air conditioning is regarded as a necessity of life. Many American homes are heated with gas at present. Within a generation this will probably change. People can be encouraged to switch to air source heat pumps, bu subsidizing the switch. By encouraging the switch, electricity produces and decrease their summer-winter electrical demand imbalance, thus lowering the reserve required to be kept for summer peak power.

My point then is that there are numerous energy efficiencies that are not only compatible with nuclear power, but actually complimentary to it. Thus increased energy efficiency would actually help a nuclear power system work better.