Peak Oil, Meet 3 Trillion Barrels Oil Equivalent: Bringing the Heat

The following article is adapted from 2 earlier Al Fin Energy postings.


More Oil Than OPEC

There's no question, says Rusco, that the oil is there, all 3 trillion barrels of it...

...Both the GAO and private industry estimate the amount of oil recoverable to be 3 trillion barrels.

"In the past 100 years — in all of human history -- we have consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil. There are several times that much here," said Roger Day, vice president for operations for American Shale Oil (AMSO). _ABCnews

Will Advanced Kerogen Production Put a Ceiling on Global Oil Prices?

Enefit, an oil producer headquartered in Estonia, has been producing oil from oil shale in Europe for more than 30 years, according to the CEO of its Utah subsidiary, Enefit American Oil. Rikki Hrenko says Enefit brings the shale to the surface, then heats it in retorts.

"It's more labor intensive to have to mine the shale," Hrenko said. "But the economics are still quite feasible." She puts the break-even price at about $65 a barrel. The cost of producing in Utah, she thinks, will be only slightly higher than in Estonia. _ABCNews

But in reality, in situ production would be cheaper in the Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming than mining in Estonia -- if producers used a cheap enough source of abundant, high quality heat. In fact, being able to produce a resource of 3 trillion boe, at a price of between $60 and $70 a barrel, might seem to place a price ceiling on global oil.

The only problem is that it will probably take 20 years before the technology for cheap, abundant, high temperature process heat are ready to meet the government regulations and prevailing prices for oil.

Yes, it will probably take 20 years before modular high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactors are approved and licensed by the US NRC, and produced in high enough numbers to be placed at Green River well heads.

But even when the technology, the cheap heat, the environmental approvals, and the market prices all come together -- there is still the problem of getting the oil to global markets. The big price gap between WTI and Brent points out the problem nicely. Adding refined oil shale kerogens to the North American mix would not help the problem of lack of access to ports.

Getting the product to market is a serious problem, in a political environment where the US Democratic Party has stonewalled the export of abundant shale gas, and obstructed LNG terminal construction in US ports. Current agendas of energy starvation cause the cost of doing all business -- including energy business -- to shoot up accordingly.

Overall, US demand for oil has been on a downward slope, while US shale oil production has grown exponentially. US oil & gas production combined with energy imports from Canada and Mexico, leave little need for imports from the middle east.

So US demand for oil shale kerogens at this time is minimal. The US economy overall is "hunkered down" and shell shocked -- uncertain about the prospects of 4 more years under the Obama administration.

But, there is still the possibility that the US might eventually clean up its economic act and stop accumulating Obama-debt and stop devaluing the Obama-dollar. If that happens, the US will need a lot more energy.

If the US should ever need to produce its 3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent from Green River Shale kerogens, will the cheap, abundant, high temperature heat be ready?

A group of far-sighted companies, including AREVA, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, Entergy, Graftech International Ltd., Mersen, Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, SGL Group, Technology Insights, Toyo Tanso Co. Ltd., and Westinghouse are pursuing the development of a true next-generation nuclear technology referred to as the High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) for the past few years. Without too much technical detail, HTGRs are helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors with robust ceramic-coated fuel that operate at temperatures at or above 750 Degrees Celsius (1400 Fahrenheit) where conventional light water reactors operate at temperatures less than half that. In short:

The design is intrinsically safe. It requires neither active or passive systems nor operator interventions to remain safe, thereby allowing co-location near major industrial facilities.
High temperature output that allow direct substitution for fossil fuel use in industrial process heat applications.
Much higher efficiency leading to lower energy cost, making it competitive with natural gas in many places of the world today without any price for carbon. _NGNPAlliance_via_NBF

The importance of cheap, plentiful, high quality industrial process heat cannot be overstated . . .

Here is a short link list of some things that you can do with cheap, virtually unlimited high quality process heat:

1. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in oil sands (PDF)
2. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in coal to liquids and gas to liquids (PDF)
3. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in oil shale kerogens 
4. Provide abundant industrial process heat for production of fertilisers, refining fuels, making plastics, etc 
5. Split CO2 into CO to use as a hydrogen carrier 
6. Overturn conventional fears of EROEI and Peak Oil 

Those things, and many more -- including biomass to liquids and gas hydrates to liquids -- will be accomplished by next generation gas-cooled high temperature nuclear reactors.
NGNPAlliance Home Page

4 Page PDF HTGR Description w/ Images

The image above matches different industrial processes with the level of heat required. Since HTGRs can provide abundant heat up to 850 C or 900 C, all of the lucrative processes listed in the image suddenly come within economical reach -- once HTGRs are perfected, licensed, and mass produced in factory-built modular units.

The image above provides thumbnail images of different processes that will become more profitable with the abundant availability of high temperature, high quality process heat.

Why do we at Al Fin Energy continue to emphasise the importance of HTGRs? Because if the US government had devoted half as much attention to developing and perfecting the mass production of safe, relatively inexpensive, and reliable HTGR modules -- instead of wasting hundreds of $billions on intermittent unreliable forms of energy -- the "energy crisis" would have been solved by now.

The fact that this has not been done, reveals for a certainty that government is not serious about providing inexpensive, clean, abundant energy for industry and society at large. Government energy policy is instead based upon more corrupt and ideological motivations, which delay the era of energy abundance unnecessarily.

Toward a More Abundant Energy Future: New Nuclear Technology

This article is cross-posted from Al Fin Energy

Intriguing developments in fusion:

Brian Westenhaus takes a fascinating look at Tri-Alpha Energy's approach to Boron fusion:fission. Brian's article complements an earlier piece by Brian Wang on the Tri-Alpha approach.

Tri-Alpha's approach is a hybrid form of fusion:fission, where high energy protons are forced into Boron 11, converting it to Carbon 12 in a highly energetic state. The Carbon 12 decays -- or fissions -- emitting up to 3 high energy alpha particles.

Tri-Alpha’s position is, “We want to know the energy and location of every outgoing alpha particle.” This is important because in a pB11 reaction the harvest is high energy Helium that can be used to directly generate electricity.

The news from Tri-Alpha is the discovery of two high-energy α-particles (alphas) – that will have a huge impact on pB11 fueled reactor designs because the alphas are much easier to extract and convert more efficiently into electricity.

This is quite significant news and powerful information that may apply to the other two leading pB11 fueled efforts, the Lerner Focus Fusion effort and the Bussard Wiffle Ball work. _Brian Westenhaus

79 page PDF document explaining this approach more thoroughly

Brian Wang has more recently discussed a report by Kachan & Co. on new nuclear technologies. Here is the executive summary of the report (PDF).

Kachan & Co. Nuclear Report Exec Summary PDF


In the excellent video below, Mark Halper discusses the future innovations in fusion and fission which he detailed in the full Kachan report. (via Brian Wang):

Advanced fission can provide humans with abundant electricity and heat for tens of thousands of years. Fusion can provide a further abundance of energy and heat for additional hundreds of thousands of years and beyond.

We have barely learned to extract energy from basic matter. It will take us a number of decades to perfect most of the technologies discussed in the video and at the links above. Will current energy technologies give us that much time? That depends upon the energy policies that our governments pursue.

Ideological green faux environmentalists -- who have achieved dominance in the US government, the EU government, the Australian government, etc. -- want us to reject advanced energy technologies, and to rely on intermittent unreliables such as the wind and the sun. Such policies would eventually cause modern societies to revert to primitivist quasi-feudal societies of a subsistence nature. Such an approach, if enacted, would result in the deaths of billions of humans across the planet.

It can be assumed that most intelligent humans -- if properly informed -- would choose an advanced technology approach to a future of abundant energy.

More: How energy from shale can help humans bridge the gap between modern technologies and future technologies...

America's Energy, Economic, and Industrial resurgence

Europe's governments choosing the darkness as the continent grows older and more feeble

North American shale bonanza promises stable global energy prices over intermediate term

NASA's Mars Rover Curiosity Says: "F*CK You, Solar"

The latest NASA Mars rover, Curiosity, is a monster in comparison to earlier Mars explorer robots. Thus it has a monster-sized appetite for energy which solar power simply could not guarantee. Thus NASA Curiosity opted for nuclear power -- the smart choice for reliable energy.

The nuclear generator delivers both heat and 110 watts of steady electric power from an array of iridium capsules holding a ceramic form of plutonium dioxide. The heat is piped through the Curiosity carried by liquid Freon. Thermoelectric devices on the generator convert the heat into electricity with no moving parts. Idaho National Laboratory, which designed and tested the energy system, says it can operate for years. _TechnologyReview

Mars Curiosity via Wired

On 6 August, Nasa's Curiosity rover landed safely on the surface of Mars, following a terrifying landing sequence that involved a parachute and a rocket-powered skycrane.

Engineers at Nasa received a first photo from the rover -- showing its wheel through a dusty lens cap -- mere minutes after touchdown. Now, 24 hours later, more media of the dramatic landing sequence has emerged. _Wired.co.uk

More: Background on the design process for the software that controlled Curiosity's complex landing sequence

More: Idaho Samizdat Nuke Notes provides more useful information and links

Government Radiation Hysteria May Do More Harm Than Good

This article is cross-posted to Al Fin Energy blog

A recent study from MIT suggests that government guidelines to protect from low-level radiation exposure may be verging on the the hysteric -- if not downright harmful.

The study, led by Bevin Engelward and Jacquelyn Yanch and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that when mice were exposed to radiation doses about 400 times greater than background levels for five weeks, no DNA damage could be detected. _MITNews

Life on Earth has always been exposed to variable levels of low level radiation. Background radiation has been a powerful driving force behind evolution, over the aeons.

Until now, governments have arbitrarily set radiation exposure limits, without basing them on realistic scientific studies. That may be about to change.

Until now, very few studies have measured the effects of low doses of radiation delivered over a long period of time. This study is the first to measure the genetic damage seen at a level as low as 400 times background (0.0002 centigray per minute, or 105 cGy in a year).

“Almost all radiation studies are done with one quick hit of radiation. That would cause a totally different biological outcome compared to long-term conditions,” says Engelward, an associate professor of biological engineering at MIT.

...Background radiation comes from cosmic radiation and natural radioactive isotopes in the environment. These sources add up to about 0.3 cGy per year per person, on average.

“Exposure to low-dose-rate radiation is natural, and some people may even say essential for life. The question is, how high does the rate need to get before we need to worry about ill effects on our health?” Yanch says.

Previous studies have shown that a radiation level of 10.5 cGy, the total dose used in this study, does produce DNA damage if given all at once. However, for this study, the researchers spread the dose out over five weeks, using radioactive iodine as a source. The radiation emitted by the radioactive iodine is similar to that emitted by the damaged Fukushima reactor in Japan.

At the end of five weeks, the researchers tested for several types of DNA damage, using the most sensitive techniques available. Those types of damage fall into two major classes: base lesions, in which the structure of the DNA base (nucleotide) is altered, and breaks in the DNA strand. They found no significant increases in either type.

DNA damage occurs spontaneously even at background radiation levels, conservatively at a rate of about 10,000 changes per cell per day. Most of that damage is fixed by DNA repair systems within each cell. The researchers estimate that the amount of radiation used in this study produces an additional dozen lesions per cell per day, all of which appear to have been repaired.

Though the study ended after five weeks, Engelward believes the results would be the same for longer exposures. “My take on this is that this amount of radiation is not creating very many lesions to begin with, and you already have good DNA repair systems. My guess is that you could probably leave the mice there indefinitely and the damage wouldn’t be significant,” she says. _MITNews

What is the cost of government-instigated radiation hysteria? Look at how the world reacted to last year's tragic earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Instead of focusing on the human tragedy of 30,000 human casualties, the media focus was on a nuclear power plant that lost power due to a poor design, discovered in hindsight, after an unanticipated natural disaster. And all of that, in spite of no one being killed or badly harmed from radiation exposure!

Advanced human societies are badly in need of reliable electrical power. The best source for that power is advanced nuclear reactors from gen III, gen IV, and beyond. But instead of pursuing an all out campaign of research and development to produce the needed electrical power generators, humans are retreating from the future in Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Italy, and more -- out of radiation hysteria.

It is time to return to a careful scientific study and to get away from hysterical herd behaviours, led by cynical governments and big money green organisations. That applies not only to nuclear hysteria, but to carbon hysteria, overpopulation hysteria, resource scarcity hysteria, and all the other forms of pseudoscientific hysteria that governments and the skankstream media love to torture the public with.

Surviving in Your Doomsday Bunker with Power to Spare

This semi-satirical article was first published on Al Fin Potpourri blog and subsequently re-published on Al Fin Energy blog:

After the Apocalypse
After the doomsday bell tolls, you will want to have a safe hideaway, packed with your favourite foods, beverages, people, and prescription drugs. But no matter how safely your bunker is designed, you cannot survive long without a source of heating and electrical power.

Issues of energy density dictate the need for a nuclear power and heat source -- either fission or fusion. The choice seems to come down to either a small modular nuclear fission reactor -- such as the NuScale or Wilcox and Babcock models, vs one of the new scalable fusion reactor models. The Lawrenceville Plasma Physics focus fusion device pictured below, appears to be the leader of the pack in terms of timeline for proof of concept, prototype, commercial demo, and mass production.

All images below taken from Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc (PDF) (via) NBF

Five megawatts baseload power should be enough to supply the power and heat needs of most medium-sized doomsday communities. When living in an underground environment, it is easy to underestimate needs for space lighting and grow-lighting, as well as power for supplying pumps, compressors, blowers, fans, filtration devices, and various electronic devices.

The diagram above attempts to illustrate energy flows and losses in the focus fusion system. Operation of the reactor will be highly automated, but a certain amount of oversight will be necessary, to assure smooth function and to limit the need for unscheduled maintenance shutdowns.

Baseload power generation means that the reactor produces 5 MW at all times. Any heat and power produced above the needs of the doomsday community will converted as needed, and routed to storage or to a sink. Since the reactor utilises hydrogen and boron as fuel, a significant amount of excess power will be used to maintain hydrogen stores. The hydrogen can be used as fuel in either the focus fusion reactor, or in backup fuel cell CHP generators.

The timeline for production of the LPP focus fusion reactors is particularly optimistic, with estimates for mass production as early as 2016.

Keep in mind that US federal and state regulators are unlikely to approve these devices for sale in the US anytime within the next decade. This means that any US citizen wishing to use these reactors as backup power supplies for their home, seastead, polar outpost, or doomsday bunker, will either need to locate outside the US, or will need to find extra-legal ways of installing their nuclear fusion (or SMR fission) reactors within the borders of the US.

In the event of doomsday, it is expected that nuclear enforcement by US federal or state officials will be suspended for a number of years. In such a case, issues of survival are likely to be paramount, over issues of bureaucratic red tape.

The Nuclear Imperative: Using Reason to Overcome Fear and so Survive

Previously published at Al Fin Energy blog


Transatomic Power Team Presentation
In a recent posting at Idaho Samizdat Nuke Notes, Dan Yurman highlights two of the most promising new approaches to nuclear power, for the intermediate term future:

In Massachusetts, Transatomic Power, run by two Ph.D. candidates at MIT, Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie, the effort is focused on using uranium-based spent nuclear fuel to provide the energy to run the reactor. Their business model is to license a design to a major reactor vendor or a state-owned reactor development agency.

...Asked why they chose this specific technology, they point to three specific factors - safety, waste, and economics. Massie says the team chose the molten salt design concept because they feel it will provide more bang for the buck, and it will be faster and cheaper for someone licensing their technology to bring it to market.

The most significant reason is that when compared to a new design for a fast reactor, there is no need for fuel design, qualification, and fabrication, a process that could add years to the development timeline.

Financial backing for the firm is coming from private investors as seed funding. Dewan says the hunt is on for early stage funding to establish a stronger financial base.

The real challenge in the next two years is to build a team to complete the design. The firm has gone back to some of the experts who worked on the molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, but what it really needs is a new generation of engineers to work on the design.

"What we offer to a new PhD. or engineering graduate is the excitement and opportunity to develop new aspects of nuclear energy. There is a misconception that there is not a lot of room for innovation," Dewan said. _IdahoSamizdat: Nuke Notes

China may be interested in their approach, but the Transatomic Power team is uncertain whether China would steal control over their innovations and intellectual property.

The other promising innovative approach to nuclear fission is Flibe Energy, Kirk Sorensen's liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR):

Liquid-fluoride reactors operate at high temperature but not at high pressure because they use a chemically stable medium as the fuel and the coolant, making them much safer to operate than conventional reactors.

He says that "Thorium is the only abundant nuclear fuel that can be efficiently utilized in a thermal-spectrum reactor and is uniquely chemically suited for use in a fluoride reactor."

Introduction to Flibe Energy

The market for the design is based on an assessment that there are many remote sites where electrical power is generated by diesel fuel that is transported over great distances and over challenging or hostile terrain. A small modular power source has the potential to reduce the costs, hazards and vulnerability of power supply-lines, saving money and even lives in term of providing power to military bases. _Dan Yurman

Much more at Dan Yurman's Idaho Samizdat Nuke Notes, linked above.

Both approaches are capable of much higher energy efficiencies from a given nuclear fuel -- either uranium or thorium. The thorium approach may offer marginally better fuel costs, once the infrastructure for thorium production is developed and scaled up. With planned energy extraction efficiencies from fuel above 98%, the cost and availability of fuel should be the least of concerns for either company for many millenia.

More: Japan prepares to reactivate some of its nuclear reactors

Nuclear fears of Californians are easy to stoke

US Air Force Targets Energy Technology Advances in Space

A recent report released by the USAF, Energy Horizons USAF 2011-2026, looks at a number of new energy technologies which might advance the USAF's mission in space -- including small modular reactors for space-based systems.

In terms of nuclear power in space, several satellite systems have been energized by Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG). This source provides consistent power, and at a much higher energy and power density than current technologies.

Work on small modular nuclear reactors on Earth is highlighted in the Air Force report: "While the implementation of such a technology should be weighed heavily against potential catastrophic outcomes, many investments into small modular reactors can be leveraged for space-based systems. As these nuclear power plants decrease in size, their utility on board space-based assets increases."

The report explains that the Air Force space systems portfolio should consider piloting small modular nuclear systems, a view previously recommended by the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. _Space

Space.com Orbital Concentrator Solar Array

In the sweeping report a number of desirable high-tech advances are mentioned.

For example, the Air Force is currently limited to 27 kilowatt (kW) arrays for satellite power. But more power is required for some future space missions, the report states, such as flights currently being eyed by the Air Force, national security organizations and NASA. "Employing larger and more efficient arrays will enable missions that require very high power, such as space-based radar or space-based laser missions," the report states.

In the long term, the report says, increased solar cell efficiencies and revolutionary materials foreshadow the potential of 500 kW on-orbit power generation technologies, "which would be transformational for performing missions from space-based systems."

Furthermore, there are other breakthrough space energy technologies that have the potential of achieving up to 70 percent efficiency, the report adds. Examples include quantum dots and dilute nitrides in solar cells. But there are also totally new technologies such as space tethers that could harvest energy from the Earth's geomagnetic field.

...The Air Force report also delves into the wireless transfer of power, a technology that continues to offer big promises despite the daunting challenges involved in making it a reality.

While there are many challenges in "space-to-earth" power beaming, "space-to-space power beaming" could be transformational, the report stresses.

An energy-beaming benefit for the military is powering sets of fractionated, distributed satellite systems, the report explains. Doing so would enable spacecraft to be smaller, more survivable, and more capable than current systems.

A power paradigm change

In orbit, many spacecraft systems — sensors, communications equipment and on-board processing — can require intense amounts of power.

Like all computing architectures, these systems are currently composed exclusively of silicon- based technology. However, decades of work has begun to change this paradigm, the report points out. Newer systems require less energy and offer a reduced thermal load in comparison to their silicon counterparts, the report adds.

Advances in satellite propulsion are also spotlighted in the newly issued report. Today, the ability of space-based systems to alter their orbits is based on blasts of on-board fuel. The possibility of on-orbit refueling for these systems is now being studied.

In the mid- and far-term, the report suggests, other propulsion technologies will provide exceptionally efficient propulsion. That will allow the fuel onboard orbiting systems to be utilized for longer periods of time. Hall and electric thrusters, for instance, promise extended utility of limited onboard propellants.

Whatever the technology, new methods of generating power in space hold great promise for the Air Force's plans for new satellites and other space missions. _Space.com

Cross-posted from Al Fin Energy

Brian Wang has more, excerpted from the AF PDF document

More USAF technology horizons from Brian Wang

Gas Cooled Modular Reactors Will Change the Future of Energy

Small modular nuclear reactors will have a revolutionary effect on the future of electrical power generation. But a particular type of small modular reactor -- the gas-cooled reactor -- is destined to revolutionise all aspects of future energy and fuels.

First, let's look at small modular nuclear reactors:

SMRs have a number of advantages over conventional reactors. For one thing, SMRs are cheaper to construct and run. This makes them very attractive to poorer, energy-starved countries; small, growing communities that don't require a full-scale plant; and remote locations such as mines or desalination plants. Part of the reason for this is simply that the reactors are smaller. Another is that, not needing to be custom designed in each case, the reactors can standardized and some types built in factories that are able to employ economies of scale. The factory-built aspect is also important because a factory is more efficient than on-site construction by as much as eight to one in terms of building time. Factory construction also allows SMRs to be built, delivered to the site, and then returned to the factory for dismantling at the end of their service lives - eliminating a major problem with old conventional reactors, i.e. how to dispose of them.

SMRs also enjoy a good deal of design flexibility. Conventional reactors are usually cooled by water - a great deal of water - which means that the reactors need to be situated near rivers or coastlines. SMRs, on the other hand, can be cooled by air, gas, low-melting point metals or salt. This means that SMRs can be placed in remote, inland areas where it isn't possible to site conventional reactors. _David Szondy

It is easy to see why the scalable nature of SMRs allows them to fit a wide variety of energy markets. Better economies of scale and increased reliability are possible from precise factory controlled construction. But why do gas-cooled SMRs, in particular, promise such a revolutionary impact on the future of energy and fuels?

It comes down to the high quality, high temperature process heat that gas-cooled reactors provide. Here are some of the things that high quality process heat can do:

1. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in oil sands (PDF)
2. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in coal to liquids and gas to liquids (PDF)
3. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in oil shale kerogens 
4. Provide abundant industrial process heat for production of fertilisers, refining fuels, making plastics, etc 
5. Split CO2 into CO to use as a hydrogen carrier 
6. Overturn conventional fears of EROEI and Peak Oil 

_Source

Brian Wang has also taken a look at this topic

One particular gas cooled modular reactor has been selected by the Next Generation Nuclear Plant Industry Alliance as the best design for the category:

The Alliance said that it had selected an unspecified Areva reactor concept, presumably based on the Antares design, "as the optimum design." It said, "The Areva HTGR technology's capability and modular design would support a broad range of market sectors, providing highly-efficient energy to industries such as electrical power generation, petrochemicals, non-conventional oil recovery and synthetic fuel production." Areva, it said, "has the technical and design capabilities to develop a HTGR for the process heat co-generation and generation markets."

It added that "additional investors are being pursued to fully capitalize a venture in order to build an initial fleet of HTGR plants for industry." The Alliance noted, "Deploying next generation nuclear technology is a critical step in solving the long-term needs for secure sources of energy, conserving fossil fuels and slowing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Clean, safe nuclear energy from HTGR would increase US energy independence and extend the life of domestic oil and natural gas resources." _WorldNuclearNews

More here

Perhaps a stimulus from the private sector will help to spur the revolution that the US federal government under Obama appears to be resisting with all its might. Regardless, it is critical for a wide range of intelligent people within various industries and sectors of the economy to understand the importance of this potential qualitative transition in possibilities for production of future energies and fuels.

Nuclear energy systems that utilise efficient fuel burn and recycling (with combined Gen III and Gen IV + reactor synergies) offer thousands of years of electrical power and optimised fuels production. Only rational nuclear energy possesses the energy density and massive fuel supplies to allow humans to transcend fears of energy scarcity in order to move into a future of relative abundance.

Cross-posted to Al Fin Energy

Britain Continues to Consider Fast Nuclear Reactor GE-Hitachi PRISM

Nuclear Street
Despite rumours to the contrary, Britain has not rejected the fast reactor concept as presented by GE Hitachi (PRISM). Talks will continue for roughly 6 months, according to Nuclear Decommissioning Authority officials. The PRISM reactor is capable of consuming nuclear "waste" as fuel, vastly increasing the amount of energy contained within nuclear fuel rods, and extending the potential nuclear fuel available to the world by centuries or longer.

Britain's large stockpile of nuclear waste includes more than 100 tonnes of plutonium and 35,000 tonnes of depleted uranium. The plutonium in particular presents a security risk as a potential target for terrorists and will cost billions to dispose of safely...The engineering firm GE Hitachi has submitted [a] ... proposal based on their Prism fast reactor, which could consume the plutonium as fuel while generating electricity.

"It's a very elegant idea that we should try and use [the waste] as efficiently as possible. I definitely find it an attractive idea", said Prof David MacKay, Decc's chief scientific adviser.

Recent news reports have suggested this proposal has been rejected by the government and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) on the grounds of being too far from commercial viability.

However, the Guardian has confirmed that talks between GE Hitachi, Decc and the NDA are continuing. MacKay told the Guardian: "My position as chief scientific adviser at Decc is that I think Prism is an interesting design and I'd like to see [details about its credibility] worked out." A spokesperson for the NDA said: "The statement that the NDA has rejected the GE Hitachi Prism reactor is completely without foundation." He added that the current round of discussions "might last about six months". _Guardian

Current commercial nuclear reactors generate large amounts of so-called nuclear waste, which is actually extremely valuable nuclear fuel. Advanced generations of nuclear reactors will be able to burn this "waste" as an integral part of their fuel.

If the material we have seen until now as waste is instead seen as fuel, it has the potential to solve three problems at once: the UK's contribution to climate change, possible future energy shortfalls and a significant component of the massive bill - and massive headache - associated with cleaning up the current nuclear mess.

The technology with the potential to solve these problems is the fast reactor, ideally the integral fast reactor (IFR), which I wrote about in December. It exploits the fact that conventional nuclear power plants use just 0.6% of the energy contained in the uranium that fuels them. IFRs, once loaded with nuclear waste, can, in principle, keep recycling it until only a small fraction remains, producing energy as they do so.

The remaining waste is both unusable for anyone who might hope to make a weapon from it and presents much less of a long-term management problem, as its components have half-lives of tens, not millions, of years. An IFR plant could melt down only by breaking the laws of physics: if the fuel pins begin to overheat, they expand, stopping the fission reaction.

GE Hitachi has offered to build a fast reactor to consume the plutonium stockpile at Sellafield, though not yet the whole kit (the integral fast reactor). It has offered to do it within five years, and to carry the cost if it doesn't work out. This is the proposal the government is now considering. I would like to see it go further and examine the case for the full works: an integral fast reactor (incorporating a reprocessing plant) that generates much more energy from the waste pile. _G.Monbiot

Monbiot is a curious example of the growing number of leftist greens who have adopted advanced nuclear energy as a viable path forward for human civilisations. While still believing in the orthodoxy of carbon hysteria, such pro-nuclear greens have seemingly rejected the "dieoff.orgiasm" of their brother and sister greens.

As for the integral fast reactor which Monbiot mentions, it is an idea that needs to be developed and put into commercial use as soon as safely possible. A well-planned and phased move from light water reactors to integral fast reactors, molten salt thorium reactors, and gas cooled reactors -- at all scales from the MW to the GW ranges -- would provide a safe and solid energy foundation under future societies and civilisations.

Wikipedia Integral Fast Reactor

IFRs Q&A

Cross-posted from Al Fin Energy

Angela Merkel: "I Picked the Wrong Century to Give Up On Nuclear Energy!"

German abandonment of nuclear energy in response to the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan could cost 1.7 trillion euros ($2.15 trillion) by 2030 if renewables replace much of the power, Michael Suess told Reuters Tuesday. That amounts to about two thirds of Germany’s 2011 GDP. If natural gas plants replaced much of the lost electrical generation, he said the estimate would be considerably lower, at 1.4 billion euros.

German legislators voted in May to eventually decommission all 17 of the Siemens-built reactors that once provided nearly a quarter of the country’s electricity. In response, Siemens announced in September that it would withdraw from the nuclear power industry. At the consumer level, the German Energy Agency (Dena) recently estimated the nuclear withdrawld could hike electric bills 20 percent by 2020. _NuclearStreet

Among the other countries opting out of nuclear power are Belgium, Switzerland, and Mexico. The costs of these plans vary _IEEE Spectrum Lite

All of this is happening at a time when the World Bank is warning of a potential global economic doomsday, originating in Europe. As the economies of Europe are hit harder, in succession, Merkel is likely to rue her rash choice.

Here is the punchline: While the Siemens estimate of the transition costs to the German economy are higher than what greens and sycophants have been telling the German government, the estimate of over a $2 trillion penalty paid by Germany is almost certainly too low. Perhaps by an order of magnitude or larger. Why? Because Siemens is only looking at the capital costs involved in converting to a nominal equivalent power capacity in renewables. It is not looking at the details where the devil resides, details which largely derive from the destructive intermittency and unreliability of wind and solar, and the much shorter lifetimes of the resource-intensive machinery of big wind and big solar..

After Fukushima, the German government jumped away from nuclear like a hysterical girl jumping from a spider or a mouse -- reflexively, and without thinking it through. If the Germans persist in pursuing this perverse green policy, the butcher's bill will be well into the $trillions and tens of $trillions, over the years. And Merkel's will be a name damned by future generations of Germans -- not the forgotten names of the greens who drove the woman to promote such a fateful choice.

Taken from a previously published post on Al Fin Energy

Solving Nuclear Waste: Accelerator Driven Transmutation Reactor

A first-of-a-kind reactor system has been set up in Belgium by coupling a subcritical assembly with a particle accelerator. The work is a major step in a program to research advanced waste management.

The equipment, known as Guinevere, is a demonstration model that supports the project for a larger version that will be called Myrrha (Multipurpose Hybrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications). It was assembled by France's National Centre for Scientific Research and is managed by the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre (SCK-CEN) at Mol, about 50 kilometres east of Antwerp. The overall project is supported by 12 other European laboratories and the European Commission.

Nuclear terminology classifies an item of equipment as in a critical state if the chain fission reaction is self-sustaining and each reaction leads on average to one more. The term supercritical means the number of fissions is increasing, while subcritical means it is decreasing and will therefore dwindle to nothing. _World Nuclear News

Symmetry Magazine: Myrrha Reference Scheme
Dangerous radioactive isotopes with long half-lives can be transmuted to elements with much shorter half-lives, using spallation neutrons. Spallation neutrons are generated when a beam of protons is accelerated into a spallation target. Neutrons, lacking a charge, do not have to overcome the "coulomb barrier", and can be much more readily incorporated into atomic nuclei to transmute one isotope into another.

(Clarification: In the early stages of this research, neutrons will be generated via Deuterium - Tritium collisions. Later iterations of the project will use the proton beam - spallation target method.)

Myrrha will be able to produce radioisotopes and doped silicon, but its research functions would be particularly well suited to investigating transmutation. This is when certain radioactive isotopes with long half lives are made to 'catch' a neutron and thereby change into a different isotope that will decay more quickly to a stable form with no radioactivity. If achievable on an industrial scale, transmutation could greatly simplify the permanent geologic disposal of radioactive waste. Myrrha can also be used to test the feasibility of lead fast reactor technology and is seen as complimentary to the Jules Horowitz Reactor, a thermal spectrum reactor under construction in Cadarache, France.

The total cost of Myrrha has been put at €960 million ($1.2 billion), with 40% of this coming from the Belgian government. SCK-CEN is looking to set up an international consortium to ensure additional financing and has completed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese Academy of Sciences focusing on Myrrha. _World Nuclear News

DLR BLogs: Myrrha Cutaway
While this European (and soon, Chinese) research is quite preliminary in terms of real world application to the nuclear waste problem, it should produce a great deal of data which will assist in designing future, waste-burning nuclear reactors.

Parenthetically, transmutation by the addition of a neutron is supposed to be behind the "cold fusion" or low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) efforts of a number of startup energy companies -- including Andrea Rossi's Leonardo Corporation, Defkalion of Greece, and Brillouin Energy. The methods being used by these startups for converting protons into neutrons is far from clear at this point.

In addition, sub-critical accelerator driven nuclear reactor designs have also been proposed for the use of thorium 232, an abundant fuel which is fertile rather than fissile -- it must be fed neutrons for conversion to fissile U 233, which spontaneously splits into smaller nuclei and more neutrons.

Causation vs. Correlation: A Real World Example

Blogger Dennis Mangan points to a study that suggests the US may have suffered almost 14,000 excess deaths as a result of nuclear fallout (PDF) from the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear core meltdown. Here is the story as it originally appeared in the June 10-12 Weekend Edition of Counterpunch. Although this does not necessarily discredit the authors of the "study," you should probably be aware that Joseph J Mangano (MPH, MBA) and Janette D Sherman (MD), have been involved for many years in anti-nuclear activism.

Here is the abstract of the article as it appeared in the International Journal of Health Services:

The multiple nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima plants beginning on March 11, 2011, are releasing large amounts of airborne radioactivity that has spread throughout Japan and to other nations; thus, studies of contamination and health hazards are merited. In the United States, Fukushima fallout arrived just six days after the earthquake, tsunami, and meltdowns. Some samples of radioactivity in precipitation, air, water, and milk, taken by the U.S. government, showed levels hundreds of times above normal; however, the small number of samples prohibits any credible analysis of temporal trends and spatial comparisons. U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. These preliminary data need to be followed up, especially in the light of similar preliminary U.S. mortality findings for the four months after Chernobyl fallout arrived in 1986, which approximated final figures. _Source (PDF)

The basic thesis is fairly simple: The authors claim that a comparison of CDC weekly death rates for a select group of US cities -- from just before and just after the Fukushima meltdown -- will provide a valid picture of the fatal effects of fallout from the Japanese nuclear plant on these US cities of the Pacific Northwest.

We will look at this thesis from the standpoint of Hill's Criteria of Causation, recently considered in this Al Fin blog post.

1. Temporal Relationship
The authors do present a "before exposure" vs "after exposure" scenario, which they claim demonstrates a significant rise in deaths in the US Pacific Northwest, thousands of miles downwind in the weeks just after the Japanese incident.
2. Strength
The authors claim nearly 14,000 excess deaths in the US in the 14 weeks after the detection of excess radiation, one week after the meltdown incident.
3. Dose Response Relationship
The authors are unable to present reliable graduated exposure data which might prove or disprove a "dose-response relationship."
4. Consistency
The author's claim that the rate of excess US deaths which they detected for the 14 weeks after Fukushima, is comparable to the rate of excess US deaths detected by US researchers in the first 4 months after the Chernobyl explosion and meltdown in 1986.
5. Plausibility
There is no known biological mechanism to explain this number of excess deaths so quickly, from such relatively low levels of possible radiation exposure. The excess mortality as reported by the CDC were attributed to seasonal infections and SIDS deaths.
6. Considerations of Alternate Explanations
There is no indication that the authors considered alternate explanations for their findings.
7. Experiment
An experimental design to test this hypothesis in humans would encounter ethical difficulties. Animal testing up to this point is unlikely to explain how such low levels of excess radiation could lead to such a rapid elevation of death rates.
8. Specificity
There is no specificity relationship that is detectable in this data. In other words, there is no logical connection between these "excess deaths" and possible exposure to low levels of excess radiation.
9. Coherence
The claims of the authors are not consistent with the existing body of knowledge in regard to human health responses to transitory, relatively low radiation exposures.

A far more devastating criticism of the authors' thesis can be found here.

.....there are several conclusions to be drawn here:
-- There is no spike in infant mortality due to Fukushima. Instead there is an accidental dip during the 4 weeks before the radioactive releases reached the U.S. west coast.
-- The infant mortality rate in the northwest U.S. was actually 23% higher in the first 7 weeks of 2011 than after Fukushima, 108 cases in 7 weeks give a weekly ratio of 15.43. We can thus say, by using Sherman and Mangano's own way of phrasing it, that this amounts to a decrease of 23% and is statistically significant.
-- The data for the full time period of weeks 1 - 21 amount to 272 infant deaths over 21 weeks, i.e. a weekly rate of 12.95. This is slightly higher than the weekly rate after Fukushima (12.50).
-- Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano have a lot to explain for us...if anybody cares to listen to them after this low point in their so called scientific careers. _Source

Source
Excess deaths from relatively low, transitory radiation exposures should only show up years after the exposure. One would not reasonably expect to find "instant deaths" from such low level, short term exposures. And yet, that seems to be what the authors were trying to find, using quite noisy data from the CDC which was never meant for this type of comparative analysis.

But what is the question that everyone should be asking of the authors? "What does your follow-up data show, over the subsequent time period since the Fukushima event?"

A quick check of the most recent CDC MMWR of 6 Jan 2012 (PDF) shows a total death count for the sample 122 cities, as 9,530. This is down by over a thousand from the 3 June 2011 MMWR (PDF) which shows a death count of 10,839, for the sample 122 cities. Should I then claim that radiation from the Fukushima incident was beneficial to the health of US residents, since the US death rate has declined over time since the meltdown? Of course not. The data bounces up and down every week, for a large number of reasons. Simple correlational studies based upon this type of data should never be used to prove causation.

Index for all MMWRs in 2011, where you can find the tables for each week of 2011.

The remarkable aspect of Mangano and Sherman's paper, is the number of people who were taken in by their shoddy "research." This includes the International Journal of Health Services, as well as a wide range of "green" and anti-nuclear political sites. One of the most disheartening articles linked to this issue is this article in Oilprice.com, by John Daly.

In the real world, people are paid a lot of money to generate such pseudo-scientific "studies", "surveys," opinion polls, marketing research, and the like. Billions of dollars can change hands based upon the results of such shoddy analysis. In the case of the UN's IPCC and global climate policy, monetary redistribution into the $trillions might be easily achieved, by "scientific" methods no more valid than those used by Mangano and Sherman.

At this point in time, most of the global media is willing to cut corners on fact-checking, for the sake of "a good story," or for the sake of "advancing the agenda."

The book, How to Lie With Statistics, is as timely now as ever. If you read it and understand it, you are likely to grow angry more frequently when consuming media pieces. If you prefer bliss, you should probably choose ignorance, like most folks.

More: A quick and dirty takedown of the Mangano / Sherman "study" by Scientific American Technology Fellow Michael Moyers

Is Gregory Jaczko US Public Enemy # 1?

Messrs. Obama and Reid teamed up to elevate Gregory Jaczko to chair the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation's independent regulator. Mr. Jaczko was anything but a neutral designee, having served for years on the staffs of both Mr. Reid and Massachusetts' antinuke Rep. Edward Markey. As a Reid adviser, Mr. Jaczko headed up opposition to Yucca. The clear intent in making him chairman was to ensure Yucca's demise. _WSJ

But Jaczko was meant to kill all new nuclear power, not just the Yucca Mountain repository.

Image via WSJ
Gregory Jaczko is Obama's Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman. He is also the #1 enemy of safe, new, advanced nuclear power in the US. This means that Mr. Jaczko is the enemy of an abundant and clean future for the US, which places him rather close to the top position as public enemy # 1 in the US. Of course, he would have to compete with a number of other Obama administration officials, including the top dog himself.

Mr. Jazcko has been unilaterally closing down agency work on Yucca, even as the Energy Department's actions remain in adjudication. He's overridden fellow commissioners on Yucca decisions. He recently gave himself extraordinary emergency powers in the wake of the Japanese nuclear incident—without informing fellow commissioners or Congress. Mr. Jaczko has yet to make clear whether those powers are ongoing, when they will cease, or what actions he's taken with them.

All of this has inspired a revolt among agency staff and commissioners, and it's undermining the body's other work. Only this week, the NRC's inspector general finished an investigation into the chairman's actions. Mr. Jaczko claims the report vindicates him (though he refuses to release the report). House Energy and Commerce Republicans have their own copy (which they intend to release), and they'll be telling a starkly different story come Tuesday, when they hold a hearing on the report's gory details _WSJ

Brian Wang presents more details on how Obama's NRC is obstructing the licensing and permitting of new nuclear designs:

The NRC has over $1 billion per year in budget and over 3000 staff (charts below). Not only is the US not competing with China in building new reactors but the paperwork of its regulations continues to slow it down from even basic operations. The NRC also collects $200 an hour from utilities to cover the costs of license reviews. _Much more w/graphs atNextBigFuture

The NRC charges hundreds of millions of dollars for licensing new designs -- which eliminates all entries but the ones with the deepest pockets. Of course, those with close ties to the Obama administration -- such as General Electric -- receive priority treatment. But even in such cases of cronies, the NRC tends to drag its feet. Such bureaucratic foot dragging often means billions of dollars in extra expenses for nuclear projects -- often enough to break the project entirely.

Jaczko is costing the US dearly in energy, jobs, GDP, and future prospects. He is a man to be despised and held in contempt, for what he has done and what he continues to do. Yet he is but one of many powerful obstructionists and energy starvationists who has taken up residence in the Obama regime.

If US voters cannot find it within themselves to clean out this nest of rats in 2012, future prospects for the US will grow much dimmer, and very quickly.

Cross-posted from Al Fin Energy blog.

More: Nuclear advocate, blogger, and engineer Rod Adams demands that the NRC be audited

Gregory Jaczko is making implausible excuses for lack of productivity under his leadership at the NRC.

Africa and Nuclear Power: Could it Ever Work?

Subsaharan Africa is rich in minerals, oil, coal, and gas. From Nigeria to Angola to Ghana to South Africa, dictators are growing rich from diamonds, gold, and petroleum production. But the wealth never seems to trickle down to the people of SS Africa. Instead it is too often transferred to Swiss bank accounts, for purposes of conspicuous consumption by the African ruling classes traveling in Europe.

Subsaharan African countries are considered to be in desperate need of reliable electric power, as a starting point to build a more advanced civilisation. Many well-meaning people have suggested the use of nuclear power for Africa. Uranium is certainly abundant in Africa. But given the near-impossibility of finding trained African nuclear scientists, engineers, technicians, etc. for safe operation of a nuclear plant, how are African countries supposed to control the nuclear dragon? Even newer, safer modular reactors meant to operate relatively unattended while buried underground will still require significant oversight and security. And a new, more complex power grid will require a whole new level of maintenance and operating skill. Can Africans do it?

An optimistic article from Engineering News South Africa suggests that nuclear energy may be exactly what Africa needs. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Increasing electricity provision in developing nations results in almost instantaneous social upliftment of developing populations, as a direct result of increased economic growth.

However, electricity provision across the vast expanses of the African continent requires unique ‘African’ solutions, which original-equipment providers in places such as Europe seldom can provide, he said.

Kemm believes the answer lies in radial power supplies, using smaller electricity grids. This would entail the construction of smaller-scale power plants such as what would possibly have been achieved with the shelved Pebble Bed Modular Reactor project.

“Transporting electricity over long distances is wasteful, owing to energy losses and the maintenance of the associated infrastructure. Placing smaller power plants closer to the point of consumption is the ideal scenario for optimal energy efficiency,” he pointed out.

Further, the power source should be as reliable as possible, something Kemm said alternative power sources could not always guarantee.

He explained that wind power, for example, was not a reliable source of energy, owing to high capital costs and that the average output fluctuated severely with the seasons. Wind turbines were said to be less efficient at reduced wind speeds and could not take advantage of higher-than-optimal wind speeds, owing to maintenance concerns.

“France achieves the cheapest cost for electricity, owing to its significant reliance on nuclear power, whereas Belgium, one of the countries with the most installed wind turbines, has some of the most expensive electricity in the world.”

Meanwhile, Kemm believes that Africa needs African solutions for African needs. He pointed out that a small country such as Rwanda’s electricity consumption peaks at about 87 MW, whereas a medium-sized city such as East London consumes about 100 MW at peak levels.

The country does not have sufficient natural fossil fuel resources to feed, for example, a coal-fired power station, and cannot rely on such fuel to be reliably transported across numerous borders.

“A small-scale nuclear power plant would, in such a scenario, provide the ideal solution to long-term sustainable electricity supply to catapult the country’s growing economy into high-gear,” he explained.

Kemm argued that the key to unlocking economic development lies in providing a country with the cheapest possible electricity. It does not matter what the source is, whether it be from fossil fuels, locally available recyclable materials that could be used to generate small amounts of electricity, or alternative energy sources. _Engineering News

It is worth reading further at the link above, for a more enlightened view of climate change than one is likely to read in most mainstream media outlets. Clearly the physicist Dr. Kemm is not worried about being attacked by the South African PC Thought Police anytime soon, by his tone.

Certainly if one plans to take nuclear power to Africa, using small modular reactors (SMRs) in a decentralised pattern of implementation as described, is the most logical approach. But even in such a situation where small scale power grids connected to SMRs are utilised, the requirement for at least a minimal level of expertise in operation and maintenance cannot be overlooked.

In South Africa, the unique demographic pattern (for SS Africa) combined with an above-average educational system, has allowed the continuation of a modicum of a high tech infrastructure to be maintained, long after the abolition of the unjust Apartheid system. But most of SS Africa is without the human capital which South Africa still possesses -- in spite of its corrupt and inept ANC government.

Here is the cold hard truth for most of SS Africa: Outside corporations or nations will need to install new electrical power infrastructure in Africa, and outside expertise will be needed to safely and reliably operate and maintain the new infrastructure -- both the generator complexes and the new power grids.

Corporations such as Westinghouse, with its small modular reactor, could install small generation facilities for individual nations, and help to contract the construction of new grid infrastructure. As long as the oil and mineral dictators of Africa were willing to forego some of their conspicuous overseas consumption for the benefit of a more advanced society where average citizens could benefit, such an arrangement might be made safely.

The problem lies with the long term requirements of advanced nuclear and electrical infrastructure. African dictators will grow tired of paying outsiders to maintain their power systems, and will start to cut corners in operations and maintenance. Required upgrades will not be implemented, the systems will be pushed beyond tolerances, and will ultimately fail. At that point, will shutdown, decommissioning, and cleanup be performed according to accepted standards? Probably not.

Let's be honest: If South Africa -- the most advanced of SS African nations -- cannot keep its power grid running reliably through the winter with its great mineral and energy wealth, how can anyone expect the lesser SS nations to achieve this goal?

Professor Kemm's idea for decentralised power in Africa is a good one, but he did not go far enough, perhaps. The buildup of large African cities requires a support infrastructure that cannot be provided or maintained by native SS Africans. In other words, African cities and large scale industrial infrastructure are not sustainable, using only local talent and workers.

That is the key underlying problem that has to be addressed sooner or later. South Africa can perhaps hobble along for decades longer, based upon its legacy human capital. But other SS nations cannot. For those nations, a back to the basics approach to energy and fuels will be mandatory, if they wish to avoid disaster.

And that means bioenergy, as the core energy technology. Bioenergy will be labour intensive in SS Africa, which is a good thing. And it will provide for the scalable power and fuels production which SS Africa demands.

Unfortunately, outsiders will not leave Africa alone. It is this outside influence which has caused the problematic population explosion within Africa, and which has pushed Africans into cities that are too large for them to maintain in a safe and reliable manner.

This unstable urbanisation of Africa calls for ever more outside involvement to manage the instabilities, which will ultimately lead to even greater instabilities yet, requiring even more outside involvement, . . . . and so it goes until disaster happens.

The one thing that would save Africa is the thing that is unlikely to occur for a few more decades: a cheap, reliable, readily disseminated means for increasing the average IQ for large populations. Since that is unlikely to come along before the crisis point, powerful people in NGOs, the World Bank, the IMF, the UN, the EU, and other powerful international organisations, are likely to consider other solutions -- perhaps a UN program of forced sterilisation concealed within a mass immunisation program? Difficult to say.

The key point here is simply that one does not try to take populations from a 15th century existence directly to a 21st century existence without first ascertaining that the technology being utilised is appropriate for the populations involved. For most of SS Africa, there is no current form of nuclear energy that is appropriate. Perhaps in the future, that will change.

Peak Oil: Meet the Heat that Spells Your Doom

With plentiful process heat provided at temperatures between 700 C and 950 C, a person could kill peak oil and have plenty of energy left to power industry and a broad spectrum of industrial processes.   Specifically, one could:

1. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in oil sands (PDF)
2. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in coal to liquids and gas to liquids (PDF)
3. Unlock the trillions of barrels oil equivalent in oil shale kerogens 
4. Provide abundant industrial process heat for production of fertilisers, refining fuels, making plastics, etc 
5. Split CO2 into CO to use as a hydrogen carrier 
6. Overturn conventional fears of EROEI and Peak Oil 

Those things, and many more, will be accomplished by next generation gas-cooled high temperature nuclear reactors. Helium gas coolant will run gas turbine generators at high temperatures, which provides electrical power at higher efficiencies than older steam cycle generation systems. And as mentioned above, the higher temperature process heat will find a wide range of practical uses in industrial processes and energy production.

Conventional fears about EROEI and peak oil will be overturned since the energy used to produce hydrocarbon fuels, fertilisers, plastics, and other products of industry and energy, will come from the high temperature heat effluent of nuclear reactions -- of which there is no conceivable near term shortage.

The "green dream" of modern faux environmentalism is a dysfunctional fantasy that will lead to the energy starvation of industry and commerce, and an ongoing widescale economic hardship. Greens have pushed governments away from most forms of reliable energy -- out of deeply felt carbon hysteria and nuclear phobia. The green rainbow fantasy love affair with wind and solar is eating away at European economies, and any other economic entity that comes to rely on those inherently unreliable sources of power.

Don't let your government lead your society down that ruinous primrose path.

Adapted from an article originally published at Al Fin, The Next Level, and cross-posted to Al Fin Energy

A Nuclear Power Plant for Nigeria? What a Wonderful World . . .

Nigeria's Federal Government is set to sign an agreement with the Russian Federation for the building of Nigeria's first nuclear power plant. Nigeria is an oil-rich African nation which is looking to diversify its sources of energy and electrical power. Nigeria has been seeking help from Russia for some time in this regard, and Nigeria's leaders are somewhat unhappy with Russia's slow response to their requests.

Modern nuclear power plants are quite safe when properly designed, built, and operated. In Japan's recent deadly natural disaster, well over 20,000 Japanese people lost their lives from a massive earthquake and tsunami, but none died as a result of a serious nuclear power plant shutdown and partial core meltdown. When such rare and unexpected events occur, the right people to cope with the situation must be on hand.

The chart on top shows the IQ distribution curves for four fuzzily defined racial groups: Asian, White, Hispanic, and Black. These curves are approximations based upon the best scientific evidence available. The second chart above shows a global IQ map by nation, again using the best available scientific evidence to produce the chart. In both charts it is clear that blacks and Africans lag behind all other "races" and nations tested. Why is this important in regard to a nuclear power plant in Nigeria? Look at the chart below:

This chart describes the IQ requirements for different types of professions, occupations, and vocations. If a population's IQ mean and IQ distribution curve provides an inadequate number of persons bright enough to become qualified engineers, technicians, scientists, etc, that population on its own will find it very difficult to maintain a high technology infrastructure. In terms of nuclear power plants, the personnel requirements are particularly critical in the cases where things go wrong.

It has been argued that Africans score poorly on IQ test for reasons having nothing to do with underlying intelligence. It is very important to test this hypothesis using the very best scientific tools available. If black and African populations have been judged unfairly in this regard, it is of utmost importance that this injustice be corrected.

Unfortunately, modern politically correct culture only wants to sweep the issue under the rug, and deny its importance entirely -- without performing the proper scientific experiments. That would be most unwise in this age of rapid scientific and technological progress -- when the mishandling of modern technologies could lead to tens or hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and other lingering problems.

This series of blog postings from "Race, Genes, and Disparity," discusses a way in which this uncertainty could be settled fairly and scientifically. Objective criteria for testing should be devised and implemented, so that modern societies can face important issues with the information that they need.

The enhancing of human intelligence is becoming a critically important issue for all societies. Nigeria has recently made the cognitive enhancer Vinpocetine available to Nigerians in an effort to bring the "national IQ" up to global standards. Other, more effective methods of increasing IQ are likely to come along in the near future. Even if western nations do not approve such therapies for use by normal persons, it is likely that nations of the third world and emerging world (BRICS etc) will have no such qualms about their use.

Whether the Russians build a nuclear power plant for Nigeria, is up to the Russians and the Nigerians. One might ask whether the Nigerian government will be willing to pay Russian engineers, technicians, electricians, welders, turbine specialists, etc to maintain the power plant indefinitely? If not, who will be minding the nuclear power plant?

The same issue is likely to emerge in other African nations, attempting agreements with Russia, China, India, etc. for the building of advanced technologies which require elite scientific and technological oversight. If the African nation is willing and able to pay for the technology, what business is it to outsiders -- as long as the technology being sold is not nuclear technology or other technology of mass death?

Africa is littered with crumbling and rusting technological projects built by colonial powers and outside interests. They are rusting and crumbling because they were not maintained. The neglect of proper maintenance is typical of the third world environment, and besides suggesting a low cognitive complement, the phenomena of widespread neglect also suggests a low executive function (EF) complement. Low IQ and Low EF: Not a promising combination for the wise development of potentially deadly technologies. Think about it.