Thanks for your information-packed article, K.T.! However, I respectfully request you edit the typography of your acknowledgment of my contributions. My Substack is GreenNUKE with no space and a pair of repeating Ns. That way people can find it by searching for the phrase, "GreenNUKE Substack."
Fantastic article. I loved the animation of CO2 within the atmosphere. I have often thought that the best way to get people to understand that the difference between 400ppm and 350ppm, where we were prior to the hysteria forming, would be to have two of those animations side by side and unlabeled and see if people can tell the difference. given CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere, it seems the first fallacy is that a small change will have a huge impact as decried.
The other thing you don't mention in this article is the fact that we are looking at this from a developed world perspective. the 7 billion people on earth who are energy poor don't care at all about CO2 and care only about access to energy on a regular basis, which is yet another reason that nuclear is the way to go.
Oct 12·edited Oct 12Liked by K.T. Lynn, Tuco's Child
You are absolutely correct in that EROI is a very important metric. I would caution in assuming, however, the energy source with the best EROI is the best energy source. I would argue that financial cost-effectiveness is even more important.
I believe that EROI should be thought of as a necessary threshold to pass for the bulk of the energy supply. Nuclear and fossil fuels clearly pass the EROI threshold. Solar and wind are dubious, although they can be used as a compliment in certain geographically favorable areas.
In North America natural gas has a huge cost advantage over nuclear, and it uses very small amounts of land (excluding the pipelines).
You are very correct that financial ROI is a very important element of the EROI. I think the authors are all in agreement that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and nuclear complemented by natural gas and some renewables/DERs will all be required to meet electricity demand in the future.
I learn more from these substacks than I learned in all my years of university, without the financial penalty. Thanks for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and understanding. Solid information minus the dogmatism, WEF conspiracy theories (regardless of whether or not they are a thing or no) and unnecessary politicking is an added bonus. With gratitude.
One question: how can one compare a lithium battery with this whole range of fuels on an apples-to-apples basis? A battery, lithium or not, is an energy container, like a petrol tank in a car. You can fill it up with electrical energy but when it is empty (or flat) it has no energy anymore although it still is a (lithium) battery.
I struggle with batteries being called energy sources instead of containers. Appreciate your view on this.
The short answer is that harnessing the practical potential energy of lithium metal is extremely difficult, except in battery form. Anything else would be revolutionary! Direct oxidation of lithium fuel is shall we say, quite exciting.
I will need to look up the enthalpy of oxidation and Gibb's Free Energy of the oxidation of lithium metal and derive the MJ/Kg. Good 101 exercise for an older chemist like me.
Oh boy, I’m not sure about all that! Actually, all I wanted to say is that batteries have no place in your list of energy sources, be they lithium-ion, lead acid or any other type of battery. Even the lithium in a lithium battery is not the energy source, (neither is lead in a lead acid battery), so no need to go into all that Gibb’s Free Energy business😀. I feel this should be made clear.
Please see accepted definitions of energy density and note the title of the bar graph.
Energy density in MJ/Kg refers to, and ranges from combustible and oxidizable materials to batteries and devices.
Lithium metal oxidizes like most metals and will burn violently. If contained within a battery device, the loss of electron is controlled and useful work may be done.
To quantify heat of reaction and determine spontaneity, enthalpy and Gibb's Free Energy are normally calculated.
We are thinking along the same lines...must consider capacity factor differences, low solar efficiency, and longevity. Panels got about 25 - 35 % capacity factor, 25 % efficient, gotta throw away in about 10 to 15 years, not immune to hail beatings...Nuke plant good for at least 60 years, 90 % running hard....but expensive, mostly due to government. NuScale SMR cost 500 M just dealing with regs and government.
Not China's government, which has a few dozen reactors under construction. They're doing many different designs, looking to an export market. If they are exporting them in five years, we'll know that nukes can still be a money-making choice.
While a strategic fiasco for the U.S., it has been wonderful for China as a jobs program to strengthen their economy (except for the Uyghurs, who experience forced labor inside prison walls.)
The theoretical Carnot heat engine is bounded by the source and sink temperature.
The cold sink is a river, ocean, cooling tower, etc.
The hot source is limited by the materials.
Nuclear power plants typically cannot operate at temperatures as high as those in ultra supercritical Rankine cycles
An exception might be the high temperature gas reactor at Fort St Vrain, CO.
Insurmountable helium leakage & maintenance issues led to decommission of the nuclear side and conversion the steam side to combined cycle combustion turbine.
Nuclear and other electric based “solutions” to the climate change hoax are ineffective unless and until the transportation sector gets electricated and the expense and mess of that means never.
During my engineering career I worked FEED on a copper mining site in Panama. It would be powered by a pair of coal burners on the coast and the jungle would be clear cut for mining and refining equipment.
Also worked on upgrades for Kennicott SLC to improve copper recovery.
Mining expense & mess and scarcity of copper, cobalt, tungsten, steel, aluminum, etc. are serious impediments for blanket electrification.
The high voltage transmission system is a very efficient means to transport energy. The resistive losses of a million-Volt DC transmission system such as the Pacific DC Intertie (Path 65) are only about 3.5% per 1,000 km. As a consequence of reactance, the 500 kV Pacific AC intertie (Path 66) has higher but modest losses of approximately 6.7% per 1,000 km.
I agree on both points. BTW, when comparing a large-diameter natural gas transmission line to a high voltage transmission line, there is no contest. The natural gas moves at about 15 mph. Electricity moves at almost the speed of light.
And speaking of entropy, how about this: Politics will invariably dilute and pollute perfectly good existing systems. No system, be it energy, healthcare, or education is improved by politicians or by anyone who acts with political motives.
Nuclear energy never ceases to amaze. Thank you!
Thanks for your information-packed article, K.T.! However, I respectfully request you edit the typography of your acknowledgment of my contributions. My Substack is GreenNUKE with no space and a pair of repeating Ns. That way people can find it by searching for the phrase, "GreenNUKE Substack."
Hi Gene -- I have edited it to reflect the title of your Substack - sorry for the typo!
Thank yuo!
Fantastic article. I loved the animation of CO2 within the atmosphere. I have often thought that the best way to get people to understand that the difference between 400ppm and 350ppm, where we were prior to the hysteria forming, would be to have two of those animations side by side and unlabeled and see if people can tell the difference. given CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere, it seems the first fallacy is that a small change will have a huge impact as decried.
The other thing you don't mention in this article is the fact that we are looking at this from a developed world perspective. the 7 billion people on earth who are energy poor don't care at all about CO2 and care only about access to energy on a regular basis, which is yet another reason that nuclear is the way to go.
Excellent points, thank you.
I try to get people to visualize 400 mg in a kilogram. It is such a tiny amount in comparison to the whole.
You are absolutely correct in that EROI is a very important metric. I would caution in assuming, however, the energy source with the best EROI is the best energy source. I would argue that financial cost-effectiveness is even more important.
I believe that EROI should be thought of as a necessary threshold to pass for the bulk of the energy supply. Nuclear and fossil fuels clearly pass the EROI threshold. Solar and wind are dubious, although they can be used as a compliment in certain geographically favorable areas.
In North America natural gas has a huge cost advantage over nuclear, and it uses very small amounts of land (excluding the pipelines).
You are very correct that financial ROI is a very important element of the EROI. I think the authors are all in agreement that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and nuclear complemented by natural gas and some renewables/DERs will all be required to meet electricity demand in the future.
I learn more from these substacks than I learned in all my years of university, without the financial penalty. Thanks for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and understanding. Solid information minus the dogmatism, WEF conspiracy theories (regardless of whether or not they are a thing or no) and unnecessary politicking is an added bonus. With gratitude.
Hello Dan, that is the highest compliment, we are grateful that you are involved! 🙏😎
Great article, KT, thanks for sharing!
One question: how can one compare a lithium battery with this whole range of fuels on an apples-to-apples basis? A battery, lithium or not, is an energy container, like a petrol tank in a car. You can fill it up with electrical energy but when it is empty (or flat) it has no energy anymore although it still is a (lithium) battery.
I struggle with batteries being called energy sources instead of containers. Appreciate your view on this.
Thanks for the note Andre.
The short answer is that harnessing the practical potential energy of lithium metal is extremely difficult, except in battery form. Anything else would be revolutionary! Direct oxidation of lithium fuel is shall we say, quite exciting.
I will need to look up the enthalpy of oxidation and Gibb's Free Energy of the oxidation of lithium metal and derive the MJ/Kg. Good 101 exercise for an older chemist like me.
Oh boy, I’m not sure about all that! Actually, all I wanted to say is that batteries have no place in your list of energy sources, be they lithium-ion, lead acid or any other type of battery. Even the lithium in a lithium battery is not the energy source, (neither is lead in a lead acid battery), so no need to go into all that Gibb’s Free Energy business😀. I feel this should be made clear.
Please see accepted definitions of energy density and note the title of the bar graph.
Energy density in MJ/Kg refers to, and ranges from combustible and oxidizable materials to batteries and devices.
Lithium metal oxidizes like most metals and will burn violently. If contained within a battery device, the loss of electron is controlled and useful work may be done.
To quantify heat of reaction and determine spontaneity, enthalpy and Gibb's Free Energy are normally calculated.
3.1 million panels! That will cost you a good billion dollars, installed. Can the reactor be built for 1 billion?
We are thinking along the same lines...must consider capacity factor differences, low solar efficiency, and longevity. Panels got about 25 - 35 % capacity factor, 25 % efficient, gotta throw away in about 10 to 15 years, not immune to hail beatings...Nuke plant good for at least 60 years, 90 % running hard....but expensive, mostly due to government. NuScale SMR cost 500 M just dealing with regs and government.
Not China's government, which has a few dozen reactors under construction. They're doing many different designs, looking to an export market. If they are exporting them in five years, we'll know that nukes can still be a money-making choice.
And we have been funding it by buying all their garbage over the years.
They own us, our politicians, our treasuries, and will be replacing us- it's a strategic fiasco.
While a strategic fiasco for the U.S., it has been wonderful for China as a jobs program to strengthen their economy (except for the Uyghurs, who experience forced labor inside prison walls.)
I don't see how you could make it any clearer. Nuclear power is the answer, with some dispatchable gas power plants for down times for maintenance.
Exactly. Thanks for your support, Al!
The theoretical Carnot heat engine is bounded by the source and sink temperature.
The cold sink is a river, ocean, cooling tower, etc.
The hot source is limited by the materials.
Nuclear power plants typically cannot operate at temperatures as high as those in ultra supercritical Rankine cycles
An exception might be the high temperature gas reactor at Fort St Vrain, CO.
Insurmountable helium leakage & maintenance issues led to decommission of the nuclear side and conversion the steam side to combined cycle combustion turbine.
Nuclear and other electric based “solutions” to the climate change hoax are ineffective unless and until the transportation sector gets electricated and the expense and mess of that means never.
During my engineering career I worked FEED on a copper mining site in Panama. It would be powered by a pair of coal burners on the coast and the jungle would be clear cut for mining and refining equipment.
Also worked on upgrades for Kennicott SLC to improve copper recovery.
Mining expense & mess and scarcity of copper, cobalt, tungsten, steel, aluminum, etc. are serious impediments for blanket electrification.
The high voltage transmission system is a very efficient means to transport energy. The resistive losses of a million-Volt DC transmission system such as the Pacific DC Intertie (Path 65) are only about 3.5% per 1,000 km. As a consequence of reactance, the 500 kV Pacific AC intertie (Path 66) has higher but modest losses of approximately 6.7% per 1,000 km.
My comment regarded generation not transmission.
AC or DC the magnitude of the required transmission is still a daunting challenge.
I agree on both points. BTW, when comparing a large-diameter natural gas transmission line to a high voltage transmission line, there is no contest. The natural gas moves at about 15 mph. Electricity moves at almost the speed of light.
And speaking of entropy, how about this: Politics will invariably dilute and pollute perfectly good existing systems. No system, be it energy, healthcare, or education is improved by politicians or by anyone who acts with political motives.
I like your extension of the Second Law 😎!
What a great way to put it lol!
Excellent!
Thanks, Tom! TC and I worked very hard on this series, and we are pleased with the reception!
Great article - I'm saving it as resource info. Thanks for all the hard work.