Industrial Scale Bio-Butanol Production w/ Clever Co-Processing

Cobalt’s technology converts sugars from non-food feedstock, such as forest waste and mill residues, into biobutanol. Cobalt’s continuous butanol production system is based on advancements in biocatalyst selection, bioreactor design and process engineering, resulting in a productive, capital-efficient, low-cost solution. This foundation ensures the production process is able to scale up quickly while maintaining capital efficiency. _GCC

GCCButanol is a four carbon alcohol which possesses much superior properties over ethanol for burning in modern gasoline engines, or for combining with diesel in modern diesel engines.

Cobalt Technologies is partnering with American Process Inc. to build an industrial sized bio-butanol plant. In addition, the partners are joining with Green Power + to include a clever carbohyydrate extraction system and alcohol processing module to a biomass power generation system (see image below).

Under the agreement, Cobalt Technologies and American Process will integrate Cobalt’s patent-pending continuous fermentation and distillation technology into American Process’s Alpena Biorefinery, currently under construction in Alpena, Michigan. Slated to begin ethanol production in early 2012 with a switch to biobutanol in mid-2012, the API Alpena Biorefinery will produce 470,000 gallons of biobutanol annually, which will be pre-sold to chemical industry partners.

Funded in part by an $18-million US Department of Energy (DOE) grant and a $4-million grant from the State of Michigan, the API Alpena Biorefinery will demonstrate the conversion of hemicelluloses extracted from woody biomass to fermentable sugars that can be used for production of ethanol. Meanwhile, Cobalt’s technology will demonstrate that these sugars can also produce butanol.

Greenpower+. GreenPower+ utilizes a module in front of the biomass boiler that utilizes steam extract hydrolyzate as feedstock and an ethanol extraction module. Dewatered solids are then returned to the biomass boiler. The process significantly increases overall profitability by converting low BTU hemicelluloses into high-value ethanol. The process enables cost-effective cellulosic ethanol production at a small scale of 10-20MMUSG/year, with an ethanol production cost of around $1/gallon US, API says.

The process significantly increases overall profitability of the site by converting hemicelluloses into fermentable sugars, which can be converted to high value biofuels and biochemicals. The GreenPower+ technology is applicable in any industry employing biomass boilers or having organic effluent. _GCC

GCCAs you can see, by combining cellulosic power and heat generation with cellulosic alcohols production, a company is able to increase revenue streams while providing its own process heat and electric power.

48th Carnival of Nuclear Energy: ANS Nuclear Cafe

ANS Nuclear Cafe is hosting the 48th Carnival of Nuclear Blogs (via NextBigFuture). Some excerpts are published below:


Idaho Samizdat – Dan Yurman
Decommissioning plans at Fukushima must wait for stable reactor conditions, The world’s biggest nuclear energy firms are lining up with proposals to clean up a historically huge radioactive mess at the Fukushima, Japan, reactor site. There six reactors in various degrees of damaged condition are presenting new engineering challenges on a daily basis punctuated by earthquake aftershocks and the continuing threat of new tsunamis.
At the same time, the Japanese and U.S. news media are publishing stories about the early stages of the crisis which may partially explain why NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko issued a call for Americans to evacuate to a distance of 50 miles from the site.
Idaho Samizdat – guest blog post by Jacques Besnainou, CEO, Areva Inc.
I am writing this essay today as a frustrated and fed up reader of nuclear-related stories originated by anti-nuclear organizations. While most recent reporting on the Fukushima reactors has been fair, some quite admirable, the coverage of MOX (mixed oxide) nuclear fuel has been mostly inaccurate and filled with half-truths.
As you may know, one of the reactors at Fukushima used MOX fuel. So what? The situation in Japan was not related to MOX fuel nor has its presence worsened the situation.
Next Big Future – Brian Wang
No deaths from radiation at Fukushima
The Register UK – The total non-story of the Fukushima nuclear power plant “disaster” – which has seen and will see no deaths or measurable health consequences for anyone anywhere – has received a shot in the arm today with the news that Japanese authorities have upgraded the incident to a Level 7 on the nuclear accident scale.
Fukushima at Level 7 on INES scale
Fukushima was raised to level 7 the same category as Chernobyl but Chernobyl had10 to 100 times more radiation. Japan raised the severity rating at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to level 7, the most serious on the international scale and the same rating that was given 25 years ago to Chernobyl, as aftershocks close to the facility heighten safety concerns.
The level 7 designation was made “provisionally,” and a final level won’t be set until the disaster is over and a more detailed investigation has been conducted. The previous event level of 5, equal to the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, was also a provisional designation.
NEI Nuclear Notes
Nuclear Energy Workers in Japan and the U.S.
“First things first: nuclear workers in the United States, both employed by the plants and by contractors, are highly trained for their duties – no farmers plucked from their fields, no gangster-hires. Additionally, the safety culture implemented at plants applies to all workers, so any safety issue that arises can (really, must) be reported.”
Advances in nuclear safety – video from Idaho National Laboratory
Idaho National Laboratory’s Director John Grossenbacher explains how the U.S. nuclear industry has boosted its safety procedures as a result of the Three Mile Island (TMI) accident in 1979 and how the industry plans to use current events at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plants to further enhance safety.
....
Yes Vermont Yankee – Meredith Angwin
Fukushima Oversimplified and Simplified – This Yes Vermont Yankee post tracks the evolution of our understanding of radiation sources and levels/ The journey took us from chaos, to oversimplification, and finally, at this point, to some level of clarity.
ANS Nuclear Cafe
...
At the act of creation – Susie Hobbs
The nuclear crisis in Japan will undoubtedly change the nuclear industry forever. Due to the ongoing efforts of so many nuclear professionals and supporters, I am beginning to think that it will be a change for the better. Innovative technologies and creative outreach are already positively impacting the way we think about energy in America and around the world.

As the lessons from Fukushima are being learned and applied, other approaches to nuclear power continue to be pursued, such as small modular nuclear reactors, low energy nuclear reactions, large and small fusion reactors of multiple types, and more esoteric forms of energy which probably will never work out, but may actually change the world.  No one knows, because humans are typically highly fearful, shite-throwing monkeys who tend to huddle in dark corners for security.

It is clear from the mainstream reactions to Fukushima, that not everyone is capable of waking up. Most people do not even want to wake up, they are too comfortable sleeping. That may be the most important lesson to learn from the world's reaction to Japan's sad experience.

More on Algal Biomass, Microchannel Gas to Liquids, BTL

PetroAlgae
PetroAlgae is an algal fuels company aiming for the near-term production of fuels from algae, in addition to producing animal feed co-product and electrical power. PetroAlgae is taking the algal biomass approach initially, and will presumably convert later to an "algal oils to biodiesel" approach to fuels as the technology matures over the next 10 to 20 years. This is the approach that Al Fin algal scientists and engineers have been recommending, for early algal fuels production.

Through a new agreement with Haldor Topsoe A/S and its U.S. subsidiary Haldor Topsoe Inc., PetroAlgae will now use catalysts provided from the subsidiary's Houston headquarters to enhance the oils produced through its algae refining process that includes coking and pyrolysis.

The agreement will also allow PetroAlgae to test the algae biomass produced from its system in refinery cokers and “validate the commercial viability” of the process according to John Scott, chairman of PetroAlgae. _BiodieselMag

In a fascinating development, Oxford Catalysts has shipped a microchannel gas-to-liquids demonstration plant to Brazil, for use by Petrobras. The plant was assembled in a plant in Asia, disassembled for transport, and will be reassembled at a Petrobras refinery in Fortoleza, Brazil, over the next 4 months.

The integrated GTL demonstration plant incorporates the Group’s proprietary microchannel reactor and catalyst technologies for the key Steam Methane Reforming (“SMR”) and Fischer-Tropsch (“FT”) steps of the GTL process. The demonstration is fully funded and managed by the Group’s partners Toyo Engineering Corporation and MODEC, Inc., in collaboration with the Brazilian national oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (“Petrobras”) which is hosting the demonstration at its Lubnor refinery in Fortaleza, Brazil.

The GTL plant will be reassembled at the demonstration site, and will then progress to the pre-commissioning and commissioning stages. These are expected to be completed within four months. The demonstration plant is scheduled to start up in September, subject to successful commissioning and availability of the required utilities from Petrobras. Following start up, the demonstration will operate for approximately nine months. _OxfordCatalysts

KiOR is pushing ahead with its IPO, aiming for a $100 million max target for its US biomass-to-liquids technology.

$1.80 per gallon: KiOR says its technology, scaled up to oil industry size, can turn wood chips into “biocrude,” then ship it to existing oil refineries to crack it into gasoline or diesel fuel, at a price of $1.80 per gallon — without government subsidies. UPDATE: Crude oil is measured in 42-gallon barrels, which would set the cost of a barrel of KiOR crude at about $76 — and oil was trading at $106.25 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange this morning, the lowest it’s been since March 30. As a rule of thumb, crude oil makes up about one-half to two-thirds of the price of a gallon of gas at the pump, which would price KiOR’s pump-ready output at roughly $2.70 to $3.60 per gallon. By way of comparison, conventional gasoline and diesel were $2.86 and $3.08 per gallon on the Gulf Coast as of March, and market prices for corn ethanol, biodiesel and sugarcane ethanol were $2.49, $4.78 and $3.50 per gallon, according to KiOR.
1,500 bone dry tons (BDT): That’s how much wood chip material KiOR will need to process every day to reach that super-low price of $1.80 per gallon. Its current demonstration plant, on the other hand, is set up to process 10 BDT per day and has been running since March 2010, which gives a sense of the scale KiOR is seeking to achieve in the space of a few years. _gigaom

KiOR's plans illustrate the near-term thermochemical BTL approach, using conventional wood chip feedstock. Other companies may choose a similar approach, but using other biomass feedstocks.

It is too early in the BTL game to know which feedstocks (other than micro-algae and macro-algae) provide the greatest amount of biomass on a reliable and sustainable basis. Entire industries will be required for biomass production, preprocessing, refining, distribution, and sales.

Almost the entire surface of the planet -- except polar regions -- is suitable for growing biomass -- both marine and terrestrial. As the best biomass feedstocks prove themselves over the next ten years or so, it will become easier to calculate the true potential for biomass to liquids fuels.

Ohio Looks Unapologetically to Utica Shale

In a presentation to the Ohio Oil and Gas Association last month, Larry Wickstrom, the state's geologist, estimated producers could recover as much as 15.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 5.5 billion barrels of oil from Ohio's share of the Utica Shale.

That's a "very conservative estimation," said Mac Swinford, assistant chief of the Ohio Geologic Survey.

While far smaller than gas fields in other states, it's not small change. At today's values, the Utica Shale could contain more than $600 billion in oil and natural gas _PortClintonNewsHerald

Some US state governments have intentionally handicapped their states' ability to profit from rich shale hydrocarbon deposits. But oil & gas wealth is nothing to apologise for:

. "Peak oil"—the theory that global oil production will soon hit maximum levels and begin to decline—is a favorite among this crowd, and it is one basis for their call for more biofuels and solar power. Mr. Watson doesn't dismiss the idea but explains why it remains largely irrelevant.

In theory, he says, "we've been running out of oil and gas for a long time," yet technology creates new opportunities. Mr. Watson cites a Chevron field long in decline down the road in Bakersfield—to the point that for every 100 barrels of oil "in place," the company was extracting only 10 or 20. But thanks to a new technology called steam flooding, Chevron is now getting 70 to 80 barrels. "Price creates incentive, and energy will be developed if there's demand for it at the price you can develop it," Mr. Watson says. In that sense, "oil and gas are plentiful."

Don't believe it? Over the past 30 years, even as "peak oil" was a trendy theme, the world's proven reserves of oil and natural gas increased 130%, to 2.5 trillion barrels.

...Or consider America's latest energy innovation: hydrofracking for abundant and cheap natural gas. This advance, says Mr. Watson, took even the industry "by surprise"—as evidenced by the many U.S. ports to import liquid natural gas that are now "sitting idle." _WSJ

The alternative to using hydrocarbons is a return to the stone ages, or worse, for billions of people. Lefty-Luddite greens of the dieoff.orgy persuasion actually long for a huge dieoff of the human population. It is possible that Mr. Obama and many of his closest aides consider themselves among such greens, in outlook. That would certainly explain President Obama's energy and economic policies.

But leftists and faux environmentalists have ridden their hysterias almost to the limit. It is becoming more difficult for them to disguise the horrific end result of their policies -- even from a massively dumbed down Idiocracy.

Deep Earth Hydrocarbons of Abiotic Origin

Scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory used supercomputers to simulate what would happen to carbon and hydrogen atoms buried 40 to 95 miles beneath the Earth’s crust, where they would be subjected to prodigious pressures and temperatures.

They found at temperatures greater than 2,240 degrees F and pressures 50,000 times greater than those at the Earth’s surface, methane molecules can fuse to form hydrocarbons with multiple carbon atoms. Interactions with metal or carbon sped up the fusion process, the researchers said. These conditions are present about 70 miles down, according to an LLNL news release. _PopSci

PO
A team of scientists and engineers from UC Davis, Lawrence Livermore Labs, and Shell Projects and Technology have created sophisticated simulations which demonstrate that methane can be polymerised to multi-carbon chains under conditions similar to those in the deep crust and mantle of Earth. (Published in PNAS)

...hydrocarbons of purely chemical deep crustal or mantle origin (abiogenic) could occur in some geologic settings, such as rifts or subduction zones said Galli, a senior author on the study.

"Our simulation study shows that methane molecules fuse to form larger hydrocarbon molecules when exposed to the very high temperatures and pressures of the Earth's upper mantle," Galli said. "We don't say that higher hydrocarbons actually occur under the realistic 'dirty' Earth mantle conditions, but we say that the pressures and temperatures alone are right for it to happen.

Galli and colleagues used the Mako computer cluster in Berkeley and computers at Lawrence Livermore to simulate the behavior of carbon and hydrogen atoms at the enormous pressures and temperatures found 40 to 95 miles deep inside the Earth. They used sophisticated techniques based on first principles and the computer software system Qbox, developed at UC Davis.

They found that hydrocarbons with multiple carbon atoms can form from methane, (a molecule with only one carbon and four hydrogen atoms) at temperatures greater than 1,500 K (2,240 degrees Fahrenheit) and pressures 50,000 times those at the Earth's surface (conditions found about 70 miles below the surface). _PO

More information in an earlier AFE posting

Better Batteries, Cheaper Splitting of Water to Hydrogen, O2

Ionic Liquid Batteries from US Naval Research Lab

While working with ionic liquids based on mineral acids, such as hydrogen sulphates, it was observed that Zn metal would react to form zinc sulphate. Since this is similar to that observed for the zinc anode in a standard alkaline cell, a series of experiments were then performed to determine how different metal oxides reacted in these types of ionic liquids.

Electrochemical experiments demonstrate that not only can these reactive ionic liquids act as the electrolyte/separator in both solid state and liquid batteries, but they can also act as a reactive species in the cell’s electrochemical makeup. Using a non-aqueous approach to primary and secondary power sources, batteries are designed using standard cathode and anode materials such as magnesium dioxide (MgO2), lead dioxide (PbO2) and silver oxide (AgO). The ionic liquid that is the main focus of this work is 1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium hydrogen sulphate (EMIHSO4), however, other ionic liquids such as those based on the nitrate and dihydrogen phosphate anions have also been found to work well in this type of a battery design. _GCC

Cheap, Molybdenum based catalysts for inexpensive splitting of water

A team led by Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Professor Xile Hu has discovered that a molybdenum-based catalyst allows the electrolytic production of hydrogen at room temperature, and is inexpensive and efficient. The results provide new opportunities for the development of renewable and economic hydrogen production technologies. A paper on the work appears in the RSC journal Chemical Science. _GCC

Xtreme Power's proprietary Power Cell technology will be used to provide 36 MW of storage at Duke Power's Texas "Notree" wind farm. More: "World's Biggest Battery"
PDF details
Large scale power storage may eventually make wind and solar more competitive power providers for particular locations where nuclear power is not practical -- isolated third world locations with minimal technical expertise.

More on Rossi / Focardi LENR / "Cold Fusion"

Andrea Rossi is not wasting time. As noted here earlier, Rossi has invested almost all his money in developing and producing the LENR reactors for the Athens, Greece 1 MW plant. Rossi also claims to have signed a contract "of tremendous importance" in the USA, with a company he is not yet at liberty to name.

Rossi plans to install a one megawatt, American made E-Cat power station in a factory in Greece in October, 2011. Rossi believes that only a working commercial power station can definitively prove to the world that his creation is real. If E-Cats turn out to be as economical as expected, they will eventually be used to power cars, trucks, trains, ships, aircraft, and spacecraft. _OpEdNews Chris Calder

More background and several helpful links at above link.

NewEnergyandFuel
Both Brian Wang and Brian Westenhaus have been following the progress of the Rossi / Focardi low energy nuclear reaction device.

Rossi claims that the reactor is able to obtain large amounts of heat energy from the low energy nuclear transmutation reactions that transform Nickel into Copper. Here is a more detailed look at the energy numbers involved in such a transmutation:

MeV for each Ni transformation

Starting from Ni58 we can obtain Copper formation and its successive decay in Nickel, producing Ni59, Ni60, and Ni62. The chain stops at Cu63 stable.

For simplicity I assume all the Nickel in the reactor in the form Ni58.

For simplicity I suppose for each Ni58 the whole sequence of events from Ni58 to Cu63 and as a rough estimate I calculate the mass defect between (Ni58 plus 5 nucleons) and the final state Cu63.

Ni58 mass is calculated to be 57.95380± 15 amu

The actual mass of a copper-Cu63 nucleus is 62.91367 amu

Mass of Ni58 plus 5 nucleons is 57.95380+5=62.95380 amu

Mass defect is 62.95380-62.91367=0.04013 amu

1 amu = 931 MeV is used as a standard conversion

0.04013×931 MeV=37.36 MeV

So each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy.


Nickel consumption
One hundred grams of nickel powder can power a 10 kW unit for a minimum of six months.

How much of Ni58 should be transformed, in six months of continuous operation, in order to generate 10 kW?

10 kW is thermal or electrical power. The nuclear power must be larger. Assume a nuclear power twice:
20 kW = 20,000 J/s = 1.25 x 10**17 MeV/s.

Each transformation of Ni58 into Cu63 releases 37.36MeV of nuclear energy.

The number of Ni58 transformations should thus be equal to (1.25 x 10**17)/37.36 = 3.346 x 10**15 per second.

Multiplying by the number of seconds in six months (1.55 x 10**7) the total number of transformed Ni58 nuclei is 5.186 x 10**22.

This means 5 grams.

The order of magnitude is not exactly the same but seems to be plausible. This means also 5 grams of Nickel in Rossi’s reactor transmuted into (stable) Copper after six months of continuous operation at the rate of 10 kW. _NextBigFuture

This may seem incredible to most persons who know how many tons of coal are required to provide the same amount of power as 5 grams of nickel. But nuclear energy is on a far different level of scale than chemical energies, such as combustion energy.

But if you consult this table of energy densities provided at Transtronics Wiki, you can clearly see the difference in scale between the energy of nuclear reactions and the energy from chemical reactions -- roughly 7 or 8 orders of magnitude, depending on the method of comparison.

Imagine the savings in fuel transportation costs alone!

Will this sparkling new form of energy prove to be true gold, or just a fool's flash in the pan? Time will tell. _AlFin2100

Update: More from Next Big Future

A New Approach to "Cold Fusion" / LENR from the Ukraine

From out of the Ukraine in Eastern Europe comes Professor Boris Bolotov and his engineer Waldemar Mordkovitch with a very different approach to fusion. Its still table top in size, runs at low, for fusion standards to date, quite cool temperatures and is reported to make electricity directly skipping over the heat step for power generation. The new fusion candidate uses the transmutation of zirconium, in zirconium oxide form on to other elements to produce energy.

For the demonstration the table top sized cold fusion reactor was pulsed with a nanosecond pulse generator. The pulses of electricity went into the cell filled with a “liquid metal.” This produced a kind of electrical arc in the liquid metal. During the demonstration reports have it that one hundred watts of power input produced three hundred watts of pure electrical output plus excess heat. _NewEnergyandFuel

Bolotov's work appears to be based on earlier Russian research which documented methods to transmute various elements. The Bolotov transmutation method apparently releases some potentially dangerous radiation, which the team is working to quench. Another way in which the zirconium transmutation of Bolotov differs from the nickel transmutation of Rossi, is that the Bolotov approach produces electricity directly -- without the need to produce heat energy as an intermediary.

More at PESN (via New Energy and Fuel)

In other fusion news, Brian Wang looks at research indicating that proton-Boron aneutronic fusion may be more feasible than previously thought.

Alta and Blackstone Aim to Turn EROEI On Its Head

The conventional wisdom among peak oil doomers and religionists says that the EROEI -- energy returned on energy invested -- is too low to allow most unconventional substitutes for crude oil to become economical.

But Blackstone Group and Alta Resources are teaming up -- investing US$ 1 billion -- to prove that unconventionals can indeed substitute for crude oil and other conventional fuels.

Blackstone Group LP (BX), the world’s biggest private-equity firm, agreed to form a joint venture with natural-gas explorer Alta Resources LLC to invest $1 billion in North American gas fields.

The entity will be called Alta Energy Partners, the companies said today in a joint statement. The new company will focus on acquiring leases and drilling wells in so-called unconventional fields, or geologic formations previously regarded as too hard to penetrate. _Bloomberg

More:

Blackstone Group (BX.N) is investing in the lucrative area of shale, following rivals such as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (KKR.N).

North American shale fields are drawing billions of dollars from companies that are eager to learn the techniques to tap into the difficult geological formations.

...Unconventional assets include shale rock fields that may hold vast quantities of oil and gas but are more expensive to tap than traditional energy reservoirs. _Reuters

Devoted believers in EROEI as a sort of "barrier wall" preventing the economic use of difficult fossil fuel resources, have been unable to wrap their minds around the concept of dynamic technology -- on many levels. At one time, the EROEI for conventional crude oils in Texas or Saudi Arabia were much too low for profitable production at any scale. At one time, the EROEI for coal in most coal mines of England was far too miniscule to allow Englishmen to substitute coal for wood as a common fuel. And so it goes.

EROEI is not a static ratio. It changes over time, as society's needs drive both technology and the broad range of economic and political considerations.

Alta and Blackstone are attempting to push EROEI to its limits in regard to various forms of unconventional fossil fuels. They are putting significant resources behind the attempt. By doing so, they are likely to push ahead of some significantly better financed -- but less bold -- multi-national oil giants.

Current artificially inflated oil prices will tend to drive investments into alternative fuels acroass the entire wide spectrum of possibilities. Until the speculative bubble of political peak oil pops, of course. Then the cyclic process begins again -- but on a somewhat higher cost level, reflecting the ongoing phenomenon of political peak oil (designed energy starvation) and the ongoing intentional debasing of fiat currencies by central banks.

Plentiful Bakken Shale Oil Profitable at $40 a Barrel and Up

North Dakota is likely to increase oil production by 300,000 to 700,000 barrels per day that will make a difference if all else was the same.

The same production methods are being used in Canada's Bakken, Cardium in Alberta, Eagle Ford in Texas and many foreign countries.

Eagle Ford in Texas is producing about 80,000 barrels per day and that could double over the coming year. _NextBigFuture

Multi-stage horizontal drilling is picking up.

IBD
One example: Bingham Exploration is cranking up production for its Williston Basin shale oil wells in North Dakota, where Bingham holds leases on more than 368,000 net acres. As Bingham expands its drilling and production, it is likely to offer equity shares on the public market. North Dakota is more "frack-friendly" than some Eastern US states, and consequently North Dakota is on a sounder financial footing than Pennsylvania or New York states.

By the fourth quarter of this year, Brigham should be producing more than 18,000 BOE per day, according to Beskow, more than tripling the output of early last year.

And yet Beskow says Brigham is just getting started. "They are still in the very early stages of drilling," he said.

Brigham currently has 58 net wells (if a company has a 50% interest in 10 wells, it has five "net" wells) in the Williston Basin, Beskow says. That amounts to just 3% of its potential total of wells once it begins drilling more densely and in some of its less developed acreage. Beskow estimates that Brigham will have 190 net wells by the end of 2012.

Brigham is flourishing today because it made some aggressive investments even as other drillers cut back during the recent recession.

"Most of their success came after the 2008 crash," said Joel Musante, an analyst at C.K. Cooper. At that time, he says, there was "no clear consensus" on how to complete a well in the Bakken.

Brigham's contribution to fracking was to do more of it. "If you want to get more oil out of a formation, do more fracks," Musante said. _IBD

It is likely that recoverable reserves in the Bakken formation will continue to rise as exploration continues, and technology improves. At today's over-inflated oil prices, the growing crowd of successful horizontal oil shale drillers are profiting very handsomely indeed.

Can Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Save America?

...mPower™ reactor...represents a new generation of smaller, scalable nuclear power plants on track to be deployed by 2020. Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc. (B&W NE) and Bechtel Power Corporation have formed a joint company, Generation mPower LLC, to design, license and build the next generation of nuclear power plants based on B&W mPower reactor technology _BusinessWire

B&W has received a $5 million grant from a Virginia community revitalisation commission, to promote the company's development of a new, safer, cheaper, factory-built small modular nuclear reactor. The fact that the funding comes from a state-level community development agency indicates how quickly the strong need for energy development is being felt across the US at all levels. The US energy giant TVA is also interested in mPower's approach to modular reactors.

Watts Up With ThatThe US national economy is being hurt by dysfunctional federal government decisions being made from the White House to the NRC to all agencies of the US government. Policies of energy starvation -- anti-oil, anti-coal, anti-nuclear, anti-gas, anti-oil sands, etc etc -- have set the current US administration apart from all previous administrations except perhaps the Carter administration. Unfortunately, being anti-energy is the same as being anti-prosperity in the modern world.

If the US acts now to certify new, safer, cheaper, more reliable, more secure small modular reactors, the first reactors could provide energy to the grid by 2020.

"How do you reduce the upfront cost [of nuclear power - ed.]? Make them much smaller - we're talking about 100 megawatts, a power a tenth of one of the plants at Fukushima," he told BBC News.

"They would be factory-built, not built on site. You could combine them, gang them together - put 10 together and you get a gigawatt plant. The point is the utility could buy into nuclear power in stages, they wouldn't have to come up with the entire cost of a gigawatt plant."

What the Fukushima crisis casts light on, though, is that the SMR idea takes safety into account from the outset, said Victor Reis, senior adviser in the Office of the Undersecretary of Energy for Science.

"This is a reactor that is designed safety first, not one that you do the physics first and then add the safety on," he told the conference.

SMR designs all run on the idea of "passive safety" - that is, protective measures run without human intervention and even without power; cooling is done by natural convection, rather than with the kinds of pumps that were at the heart of the Fukushima plant's problems.

They are also small enough to be built underground, making them less vulnerable to severe weather, unauthorised access, impacts, and to some degree, seismic events. _BBC

Unfortunately, these reactors may never be built, since the priorities of the Obama administration lie elsewhere than in promoting a prosperous future for the United States. Look, we know that Mr. Obama has a plan. Hopefully, one day, we will all know what it was.

47th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at Cool Hand Nuke

Cool Hand Nuke hosts the 47th edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Energy. Here are a few excerpts:

• Canadian Energy Issues

"When the prospect of a single nuclear-related fatality is judged more newsworthy than the plight of half a million homeless survivors of an unprecedented natural disaster, then something has gone egregiously wrong in the editorial rooms of mainstream media vehicles. It is time we admit that we do risk wrong in our public conversations."

•  Nuke Power Talk

It notes TVA's efforts to educate the public on the critical design differences that distinguish Browns Ferry from the Fukushima BWR Mark 1s.  Such understanding is important to public acceptance.  

• Nuclear Green

"George Monbiot Declares the Era of Confusion Over:" What Mobiot does is to demonstrate that Caldicott systematically evades her responsibility to prove the things she claims to be proven true by scientific evidence. Caldicott has been playing this game for years, but her day of reckoning has arrived, and Monbiot gives her unwillingness or inability to provide evidence the exposure it richly deserves.  Caldicott is confused. No doubt a lot of people are, but George Monbiot, who has finally worked through his own confusion, has clearly announced that the Era of Confussion is over _CoolHandNuke

Visit the entire carnival at the links above. You will find more stories on the Fukushima nuclear reactors incident, and other stories dealing with the quest for more new safe nuclear power.

MidAmerican Energy in Iowa is almost unfazed by Japan's nuclear incident, and appears determined to go ahead with a new plant incorporating one or more small modular reactors -- to go online near 2020.

A Cold Look at Big Wind in the UK 2008 to 2010

It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement. _UKWindReport PDF

Stuart Young Consulting has released a 28 page PDF review of UK wind power from 2008 to 2010 (via TheRegister), which contradicts many of the green talking points used to promote wind energy. Policy analysts and decision makers must have access to reliable facts and figures, if they are to help businesses and governments make the best possible decisions regarding vital energy supplies.

1. During the study period, wind generation was:
• below 20% of capacity more than half the time.
• below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.
• below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve.
• below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.

2. Among the 124 days on which generation fell below 20MW were 51 days when generation was 10MW or less. In some ways this is an unimportant statistic because with 20MW or less output the contribution from wind is effectively zero, and a few MW less is neither here nor there. But the very existence of these events and their frequency - on average almost once every 15 days for a period of 4.35 hours - indicates that a major reassessment of the capacity credit of wind power is required.
3. Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter. They can occur at any time of the year.
4. The incidence of high wind and low demand can occur at any time of year. As connected wind capacity increases there will come a point when no more thermal plant can be constrained off to accommodate wind power. In the illustrated 30GW connected wind capacity model with “must-run” thermal generation assumed to be 10GW, this scenario occurs 78 times, or 3 times a month on average. This indicates the requirement for a major reassessment of how much wind capacity can be tolerated by the Grid.
5. The frequency of changes in output of 100MW or more over a five minute period was surprising. There is more work to be done to determine a pattern, but during March 2011, immediately prior to publication of this report, there were six instances of a five minute rise in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 166MW, and five instances of a five minute drop in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 148MW....
...
6. The volatility of wind was underlined in the closing days of March 2011 as this Report was being finalised.

• At 3.00am on Monday 28th March, the entire output from 3226MW capacity was 9MW.
• At 11.40am on Thursday 31st March, wind output was 2618MW, the highest recorded to date.
• The average output from wind in March 2011 was 22.04%.
• Output from wind in March 2011 was 10% of capacity or less for 30.78% of the time.


The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on “average output” figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged.

It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.
_PDFJMTWindReport_UK

Most people are unwilling to delve into the technical details of energy cost-benefit analysis, but it is the specific technical details of big wind energy which damn the entire enterprise.

Wind output is actually below 20 per cent of maximum most of the time; it is below 10 per cent fully one-third of the time. Wind power needs a lot of thermal backup running most of the time to keep the lights on, but it also needs that backup to go away rapidly whenever the wind blows hard, or it won't deliver even 25 per cent of capacity.

Quite often windy periods come when demand is low, as in the middle of the night. Wind power nonetheless forces its way onto the grid, as wind-farm operators make most of their money not from selling electricity but from selling the renewables obligation certificates (ROCs) which they obtain for putting power onto the grid. Companies supplying power to end users in the UK must obtain a certain amount of ROCs by law or pay a "buy-out" fine: as a result ROCs can be sold for money to end-use suppliers.

Thus when wind farmers have a lot of power they will actually pay to get it onto the grid if necessary in order to obtain the lucrative ROCs which provide most of their revenue, forcing all non-renewable providers out of the market. If the wind is blowing hard and demand is low, there may nonetheless be just too much wind electricity for the grid to use, and this may happen quite often...

...there is little point building more wind turbines above a certain point: after that stage, not only will they miss out on revenue by often being at low output when demand is high, but they will also miss out by producing unsaleable surplus electricity at times of low demand. The economic case for wind – already unsupportable without the ROC scheme – will become even worse, and wind will require still more government support (it already often needs large amounts [3] above and beyond ROCs).

The idea that pumped storage will be able to compensate for absent wind – meaning that there will be no need for full thermal capacity able to meet peak demand – is also exposed as unsound. The UK has just 2,788 megawatts of pumped-storage capacity and it can run at that level for just five hours. UK national demand is above 40,000 megawatts for 15 hours a day and seldom drops below 27,000. Pumped storage would have to increase enormously both in capacity and duration – at immense cost – before it could cope even with routine lulls hitting the planned 30-gigawatt wind sector, let alone rare (but certain to occur) prolonged calms. _TheRegister

Big wind without big storage becomes a big drain on the entire economy. But big, utility-scale storage is expensive to build, and not available everywhere.

It has been argued that hydro power provides a good backup to wind, but given what we are learning about big wind's unreliability and huge costs, why would anyone even bother trying to make big wind palatable? The underlying compulsion to build big wind and solar -- carbon hysteria -- rests upon unscientific claims and unreliable computer models.

Big wind is a huge and ruinously expensive house of cards, being built up for reasons both corrupt and emotional, not rational to the public purse which is called upon to prop up the faulty enterprise. It is long since time to call it quits.

More: See this GWPF article linking to this John Muir Trust coverage of the same report.

A Quick Look at the USEIA's World Shale Gas Resources Report

Brian Wang
The US EIA has released a 350 page report (51 MB PDF Download) assessing the world shale gas resources (for 32 selected nations). While the huge US shale gas bonanza is well known, the wealth of shale gas in the rest of the world was not as widely known prior to the publishing of this report.

As the technology and expertise for developing this resource spreads out from North America to Europe, Asia, South America, and Oceania, we can expect the global energy equation to change drastically -- just as it has changed recently within the US and Canada.

The location of these resources -- inside nations not typically known for their vast hydrocarbon deposits -- is a huge reason why shale gas will shake the established energy order to its foundations.

The initial estimate of technically recoverable shale gas resources in the 32 countries examined is 5,760 trillioncubic feet, as shown in Table 1. Adding the U.S. estimate of the shale gas technically recoverable resources of 862 trillion cubic feet results in a total shale resource base estimate of 6,622 trillion cubic feet for the United States and the other 32 countries assessed. To put this shale gas resource estimate in some perspective, world proven reserves5of natural gas as of January 1, 2010 are about 6,609 trillion cubic feet,6 and world technically recoverable gas resources are roughly 16,000 trillion cubic feet,7largely excluding shale gas. Thus, adding the identified shale gas resources to other gas resources increases total world technically recoverable gas resources by over 40 percent to 22,600 trillion cubic feet. _USEIA Report Summary

Shale Gas' WOW! Moment
The Shale Gas Energy Revolution
Global Shale Gas Boosts Total Natural Gas Resources by 40% !
Full USEIA 51 MB PDF Report Download

The take-home message is that humans have barely scratched the surface of global hydrocarbon resources. By the time they begin to scratch the surface, they should be ready to move on to advanced safe fission and fusion, as well as a number of other energy sources considered impractical at this time.

Table 1.  Estimated shale gas technically recoverable resources for select basins in 32 countries, compared to existing reported reserves, production and consumption during 2009
	2009 Natural Gas Market1           (tillion cubic feet, dry basis)			Proved Natural Gas Reserves2 (trillion cubic feet)		Technically Recoverable Shale Gas Resources (trillion cubic feet)
	Production	Consumption	Imports (Exports)
Europe
France	0.03	1.73	98%		0.2	180
Germany	0.51	3.27	84%		6.2	8
Netherlands	2.79	1.72	(62%)		49.0	17
Norway	3.65	0.16	(2,156%)		72.0	83
U.K.	2.09	3.11	33%		9.0	20
Denmark	0.30	0.16	(91%)		2.1	23
Sweden	-	0.04	100%			41
Poland	0.21	0.58	64%		5.8	187
Turkey	0.03	1.24	98%		0.2	15
Ukraine	0.72	1.56	54%		39.0	42
Lithuania	-	0.10	100%			4
Others(3)	0.48	0.95	50%		2.71	19
North America
United States(4)	20.6	22.8	10%		272.5	862
Canada	5.63	3.01	(87%)		62.0	388
Mexico	1.77	2.15	18%		12.0	681
Asia
China	2.93	3.08	5%		107.0	1,275
India	1.43	1.87	24%		37.9	63
Pakistan	1.36	1.36	-		29.7	51
Australia	1.67	1.09	(52%)		110.0	396
Africa
South Africa	0.07	0.19	63%		-	485
Libya	0.56	0.21	(165%)		54.7	290
Tunisia	0.13	0.17	26%		2.3	18
Algeria	2.88	1.02	(183%)		159.0	231
Morocco	0.00	0.02	90%		0.1	11
Western Sahara	-	-			-	7
Mauritania	-				1.0	0
South America
Venezuela	0.65	0.71	9%		178.9	11
Colombia	0.37	0.31	(21%)		4.0	19
Argentina	1,46	1.52	4%		13.4	774
Brazil	0.36	0.66	45%		12.9	226
Chile	0.05	0.10	52%		3.5	64
Uruguay	-	0.00	100%			21
Paraguay	-	-				62
Bolivia	0.45	0.10	(346%)		26.5	48
Total of above areas	53.1	55.0	(3%)		1,001	6,622
Total world	106.5	106.7	0%		6,609
Sources: 1Dry production and consumption: EIA, International Energy Statistics, as of  March 8, 2011. 2 Proved gas reserves: Oil and Gas Journal, Dec., 6, 2010, P. 46-49. 3Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria. 4U.S. data are from various EIA sources.

What is Dr. Pfromm Missing When He Says Algal Fuels are Doomed?

[Peter]Pfromm and K-State researchers Vincent Amanor-Boadu, associate professor of agricultural economics, and Richard Nelson with the Center for Sustainable Energy conducted an in-depth analysis on algae biodiesel production. Their first algae-related nonprofit study, "Sustainability of algae derived biodiesel: A mass balance approach," supplied the cover picture in a recent edition of Bioresource Technology, a peer-reviewed journal. _Eurekalert

Pfromm and his colleagues came to the conclusion that it is impractical to make biodiesel from algal oils, due to the physics of limited available sunlight, and the chemistry of limited available carbon and CO2 feedstock. These limitations -- and other shortcomings pointed out by Pfromm et al -- make the production of algal biodiesel a difficult uphill battle. The authors criticise economists who promote algal fuels, for focusing entirely on the financials, and not looking hard enough at the physics, chemistry, and microbiology of the process.

And yet, it seems as if Dr. Pfromm and his colleagues may have missed a few things regarding the algal fuels picture themselves. There is no doubt that the energy equations must balance, as must the chemical input and output equations. And there are certainly huge problems involved with both the open pond (or raceway) approach to algal farming, as well as the closed bioreactor approach. It is likely that it will take at least 5 years, and possibly 10, to solve these problems well enough to make algal fuels competitive and ready to scale up.

Algae2020 PDF
Dr. Pfromm is not alone in his pessimism toward algae. Many photosynthetic fuels researchers have turned away from algae toward cyanobacteria, and other engineered bacteria. That is because bacterial DNA is easier to access and manipulate than algal DNA. Other microbial fuels researchers have turned away from sunlight and CO2 altogether -- in favour of a feedstock and energy supply from biomass sugars.

Any photosynthetic fuels maker trying to feed his microbes with atmospheric CO2 and sunlight alone is doomed to fail. Photosynthetic microbes need a lot more carbon than they can get from the atmosphere (a mere 0.04% CO2). But cement plants and fossil fuel burning power plants provide copious amounts of CO2 which can be pumped into growing environments for microbes. And sunlight can be augmented by artificial light to enhance growth.

But the biggest thing that Dr. Pfromm and other algal skeptics seem to overlook time and time again, is that the early profits from algal fuels will not likely come from algal oil biodiesels. The early profits will come from the prolific biomass potential of algae.

Sure, eventually it will be economical to separate the lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates in order to best utilise the individual components of algal mass. But in the early stages, the algal biomass itself is the high-value crop. Micro-algae and seaweed (macro-algae) are most prolific, compared to land crops.

Growing algae for biomass, rather than for lipids, allows for much more economical and less fastidious growing methods and harvesting techniques. Locating algal biomass farms near sources of wastewater and waste CO2 allows for low-cost feedstock which can be converted quickly and economically into algal biomass. Omitting the lipid separation step streamlines the process in many ways.

Once you have the biomass, you can choose from a wide variety of methods for converting the biomass to either energy, fuels, or high value chemicals. Gasification to syngas allows for direct power generation using gas turbines, conversion to hydrocarbons via catalytic synthesis, or fermentation to alcohols and other chemicals. Pyrolysis can be even more economical, allowing the elimination of the potentially expensive drying step -- using simple straining and filtering instead.

Thermochemical (and fermentation) conversions of algal biomass to energy and fuels can take advantage of the more advanced state of development of those approaches, compared to more direct microbial fuels. Eventually, algae and other microbes will become more economical for production of fuels than the thermochemical and fermentation approaches to biomass treatment. When that happens, the industry will shift in that direction -- as the economics dictates.

Dr. Pfromm and his colleagues make some excellent points which microbial and algal fuels researchers must necessarily deal with. But they will do so successfully, in time. In the meantime, it is best to follow a logical progression in these things, as nature, science, and technology allow.

Top 10 Algal Biofuel and Biochemical trends from 2011 to 2020

A French-Spanish project to develop large scale algal fuels in closed tube reactors

One way Sapphire Energy manages to stay in the algal fuels race when so many other companies have fallen by the wayside

Learning to produce algal fuels at a cost of $94 a barrel: Not good enough, Sonny Jim! But moving in the right direction.

Tiny Microchannel Fischer-Tropsch Reactor Can Make 6 BPD!

While several R&D groups around the world have shown the potential of microchannel reactors for process intensification, only Velocys has been successful in developing the technology for industrial scale applications. This effort, begun in 1998, spanned several key scale-up steps, and recently culminated in fabricating the manufacturing test device shown in Figure 6. If operated, this reactor would have a nominal capacity of 1,000 liters/day or 6 barrels/day (bpd). _VelocysPDF

Velocys PDF White Paper
There are commercially operating oil wells which produce less than 6 barrels per day. For a tiny microchannel F-T reactor to produce that amount is remarkable. Learn more about Velocys' technology from their PDF white paper.

More: The Velocys microchannel F-T reactors can convert natural gas to liquid fuel on virtually any scale. Given that 5% of the world's natural gas production is flared (via GCC) -- burned or released into the atmosphere -- there is a lot of profit waiting to be made through such a device. Approximately 1 billion barrels of oil equivalent worldwide per year, potentially.

Microchannel design is hitting theoretical engineering like a freight train, and is beginning to impact commercial design and development as well -- for a wide array of applications. The scalability of the microchannel approach should cause most persons to eventually see industrial and power plants in a much friendlier way.

A microreactor or microstructured reactor or microchannel reactor is a device in which chemical reactions take place in a confinement with typical lateral dimensions below 1 mm; the most typical form of such confinement are microchannels.[1] Microreactors are studied in the field of micro process engineering, together with other devices (such as micro heat exchangers) in which physical processes occur. The microreactor is usually a continuous flow reactor (contrast with/to a batch reactor). Microreactors offer many advantages over conventional scale reactors, including vast improvements in energy efficiency, reaction speed and yield, safety, reliability, scalability, on-site/on-demand production, and a much finer degree of process control. _Wiki

Oregon State University engineers have developed a surface mount adhesive that will allow for much cheaper and speedier assembly of low to medium temperature microchannel reactors than previously possible.

Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Polytechnic Institute of New York University, are developing a continuous process microchannel reactor for scalable polymer synthesis.

One use of microchannel heat exchangers already in use is the microchannel cooling system for computer processors. Microchannel designs allow for particularly efficient heat exchange -- which can be utilised for powering chemical reactions such as Fischer Tropsch, or for more mundane cooling purposes.

Other uses for microchannel reactors include high throughput analysis of samples, the experimental emulation of enzyme systems and living tissue systems, and a combination of synthesis, purification, and analysis of product in a single package. More practical uses of this technology are on the way.

Safety of Power Generation by Source

WaPo_via_NextBigFuture
At least a small part of the news media is finally moving away from nuclear hysteria. The Washington Post (via Brian Wang) has decided to break away from the pack and present a more honest look at the dangers associated with the different important forms of power generation.

History suggests that nuclear power rarely kills and causes little illness. That’s also the conclusion engineers reach when they model scenarios for thousands of potential accidents.

Making electricity from nuclear power turns out to be far less damaging to human health than making it from coal, oil or even clean-burning natural gas, according to numerous analyses. That’s even more true if the predicted effects of climate change are thrown in.

Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe _WaPo

Of course, Brian Wang does a better job of explaining the issue than the Washington Post, as you might expect. Brian reveals that even wind, solar, and biomass energy production have killed many more than nuclear power.

The only two deaths associated with the Fukushima reactors incident were caused by the earthquake and tsunami. Compared to 9.0 earthquakes and 50 ft. tsunamis, nuclear power is as safe as a mother's arms.

It is important to point out that the damning statistics aimed at coal are computed by Lancet authors -- a journal which has not compiled the most trustworthy public health stats over the past 10 years. And yet, even if long-term deaths from coal use are being over-estimated by a factor of 10, they are still significant when compared to nuclear.

Future use of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal plants will slash pollution from coal use. And a new method of using waste fly ash from coal -- turning it into a high value, life-saving product -- will cause the informed public to look at even that ugly waste product differently.

Even with 40 year-old reactors, nuclear power is the safest source around by far. Imagine how much safer nuclear could be if Mr. Obama's NRC ever got off its fat, lazy, pompous arse, and did its job?

Cross-posted from Al Fin

Cryogenic Utility-Scale Power Storage for Load Leveling 50% Efficient

Charge/Store: The system operates by using electrical energy to drive an air liquefier (effectively the charging system) and storing the resultant liquid air in an insulated tank (effectively the energy store) at atmospheric pressure.
Power recovery: When the stored energy is required, the liquid air is released from the storage tank, pumped in its liquid form to high pressure, vapourised and heated to ambient temperature (using either ambient heat or waste heat); the resultant high pressure gaseous air is used to drive an expansion turbine which in turn powers a generator (collectively the power recovery system). The exhaust is cold air.
Cold recapture: As the cryogen is evaporated and returned to ambient temperature in the power recovery unit, we capture the cold exergy and store it. It is then used back into the liquefaction process. Harnessing and ‘recylcing’ the cold broadly halves the energy cost of liquefaction, increasing the round-trip efficiency of the system to ~ 50%. This can be increased further by adding in waste heat, including low grade heat to the power recovery process. _Highview

POThis approach to utility-scale power storage comes from the UK, where it has been used at a Scotland power plant for 9 months. It involves cooling air to liquid temperatures (-196 C) with excess power, and storing the cryogen in an insulated tank. When power is needed, the cryogen is released into a sealed space and allowed to warm and expand -- driving a turbine to generate power.

The Highview Cryo Energy System uses liquefied air or liquid nitrogen (78% of air) which can be stored in large volumes at atmospheric pressure. Liquid nitrogen is a very common commercial product, transported daily from liquefaction plant to customer; or, for larger users, produced on site.

Liquefied air has a high expansion ratio between its liquid state (-196º Celsius) and, more common, gaseous state; expanding about 700 times when regasified. As with a traditional steam engine, a cryogenic engine relies on phase-change (liquid to gas) and expansion within a confined space e.g. engine cylinder or turbine.

Since liquid air boils at -196º Celsius, ambient temperature will superheat it, creating regasification and expansion. An engine can therefore use freely available environmental heat as the heat source.

The energy density of cryogenic fluids, such as liquid nitrogen compares favourably with alternative energy storage fluids such as compressed air. Cryogenic storage also has the advantage over compressed gases in that it can be bulk stored above ground in low pressure tanks. _Highview_via_PO

More:

Energy storage offers the opportunity to store, or ‘bank’ ‘wrong time’ energy and time-shift it to periods of peak demand or hold it in reserve. This is critical to enable the use of intermittent renewable power (e.g. wind or solar) when the customer needs it, not just when it is available. It can equally “provide shape” to must-run generation (i.e. nuclear or Energy from Waste/biomass), moving excess off-peak energy to the peak demand and pinch points. It also reduces both the capital cost and carbon footprint of electricity networks by making them more efficient; with stored reserves – not over-capacity of generation in reserve – to manage supply and demand.

Electricity supply and demand have to match on a second by second basis. Historically, the balance is achieved by significantly overbuilding generation, transmission, and distribution assets, and specifically keeping enough quick response generation in reserve. This is unlike any other commodity market, where storage/reserves are used to manage supply and demand, including unexpected imbalances.

Currently, quick response reserve generation includes (i) ‘spinning reserve’: generation plants burning coal or other hydrocarbons, but producing reduced power so as to be in a state of readiness; or (ii) gas and diesel generators: quick to start but environmentally poor.

Emission and environmental legislation, plus the simple cost of building over-capacity into the network is driving the need for a zero emission solution.

Market Potential for energy storage: ~ $600 billion over the next 10 -12 years

According to the US Dept of Energy, “big energy storage is an effective tool to improve the reliability, stability, and efficiency of the envisioned electrical grid of the future. This grid will be significantly impacted by new demands, such as plug-in electrical vehicles, increased use of renewable energies, and smart grid controls. Large scale storage technology could shave the peaks from a user or utility load profile, increase asset utilization and delay utility upgrades, decrease fossil fuel use and provide high levels of power quality, while increasing grid stability. In addition, distributed energy storage near load centers can reduce congestion on both the distribution and transmission systems.”
_Highview

This technology can also be used for "waste heat to power" and for commercial cooling.This approach is almost an "off the shelf" design, requiring no new technology development. It appears to be easily scalable. Efficiencies of 50% are somewhat below that of flow cells (65%) and pumped storage hydroelectric (75%), but cryogenic storage does not require nearby mountain reservoirs (as with pumped storage hydro) or significant technology improvements (as with flow cells).

More: An optimist hopes that large scale energy storage will allow a small arid country like Israel to generate 90% of its power needs from solar. He is looking at pumped storage hydro and redox flow cell batteries, but the principle is the same when using cryogenic storage. Unfortunately for the Israeli solar champion quoted at the link, following his prescription would assure an even speedier death of the micro-state than is already in the cards due to demographics. The expense of building and maintaining such a huge photovoltaic array, compared to likely costs for small modular nuclear reactors, would be exorbitant -- without even taking into account the cost of necessary storage. The result of relying on big wind or big solar is economic devastation and energy starvation. Israel, like most advanced nations, cannot afford more of either.

News Media Makes Itself an Ass over Fukushima Reactor Incident

Due to the tragic earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, over 25,000 Japanese are dead or missing. At the Fukushima nuclear reactors, no one has died. Yet the news media has been stuck on full-hysteria mode over the Japanese nuclear reactors. The media is clearly focused on a goal other than reporting the important news of the day. What could it be?

As the situation at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear powerplant slowly winds down, the salient facts remain the same as they have been throughout: nobody has suffered or will suffer any radiological health consequences. Economic damage and inconvenience resulting from the quake's effects on nuclear power have been significant, but tiny in comparison to all other human activities – the nuclear power plants in the stricken region have suffered less damage and caused less trouble to local residents than anything else that was there.

Despite this background, the details of which are now largely uncontested, hysteria continues to grip large sections of the news media and the internet. _Register

It is natural to be concerned about a disaster which might conceivably affect you or someone you care about. But intelligent people use such natural concerns as motivation to inform themselves on the facts. For a more balanced look at what is going on at the Fukushima reactors:

This excellent summary of the Fukushima incident from Rod Adams is one of several fine entries into this weeks edition (46th) of the Carnival of Nuclear Energy, hosted by Brian Wang.

News roundup from Idaho Samizdat Nuclear Notes

A measured perspective on Fukushima from Brave New Climate

An interesting article published in The Atlantic suggesting that small modular nuclear reactors may receive a boost from higher level bureaucratic and political reaction to Fukushima. (H/T NEI Nuclear Notes)

Damage to the nuclear reactors was severe in the aftermath of the scale 9 earthquake and massive tsunami. The infrastructure damage at the Fukushima reactors is an economic and energy setback for the Japanese, as well as a public relations nightmare for the Japanese and the nuclear industry in general.

But the reason why the nuclear industry is being tarred so badly is because the world's media has focused its brightest lights on the reactors -- and decided to spew the most radioactively deceptive and misleading "reporting" as possible.

Yes, the world is becoming an Idiocracy -- it doesn't require a genius to see that. Corrupt and dysfunctional government school systems are not entirely to blame, either. Clearly the news and entertainment media play an even greater role in the education and informing of most citizens than the school systems, in the long run. If the media has chosen to dumb down and mislead the public, who will watch the watchers?

Am I saying not to worry about it, that nothing can go wrong? Just the opposite. I am saying to worry about it -- worry about everything. Worry so much that you are prepared for the worst that may come your way. Then hope for the best. Worry is just your brain's way of telling you to get off your lazy arse and learn what you need to learn, do what you need to do, and make whatever preparations you need to make.

No one should need to tell you to be very sceptical of anything you read or hear.

More on how the Fukushima incident may change the direction of the nuclear industry toward more "fail-safe" reactor designs.

Taken from an earlier article at Al Fin

Producing Oil at $45 a Barrel from Mixed Waste Plastics

Oregon company Agilyx has raised $22 million in new operating cash from high profile investors including Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, venture capital firm Chrystalix, and corporate investors Waste Management and Total Energy Ventures International. Agilyx has developed a system of rapid pyrolytic treatment of mixed and contaminated plastics into pure petroleum oil -- which it says it can produce at about $45 a barrel.

The company has developed a multi-step process which it says can convert about ten pounds of mixed plastics into one gallon of crude oil.

To make oil, it heats plastics to the point where they turn into a gas. There is then a condensing stage, which converts the gas back into a liquid and removes impurities.

Agilyx is now operating a demonstration plant, which is selling oil to a refiner, and intends to sell its equipment to plastic handlers and recyclers which deal with large volumes. The synthetic crude oil can be refined on site or shipped to standard refiners and the net carbon footprint from its technology is favorable, according to the company.

...The technology can produce oil at about $45 a barrel, Brian Wawro from Chrysalix told the Portland Business Journal. _CNET

The cost of the final product will depend in part upon how much the feedstock wastes cost the producer. The cheaper the garbage, the cheaper the end fuels and energy.

Agilyx is one of dozens of companies hoping to cash in on the waste-to-energy trend. Anyone who has seen video of the great garbage avalanche of 2505, will understand the importance of a tidy and resourceful re-cycling of civilisation's garbage. If you can profit from maintaining a cleaner landscape at the same time, who will complain except the dieoff.orgy greens?