Energy -- It Just Doesn't Add Up

For those who don’t remember, in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s it was predicted that oil wouldn’t last until the end of the 20th Century, and that CO2 emissions were going to put us into the next ice age.  Yes, you heard me right.  See, we were in a climatic cooling cycle, so the colder winters gave rise to the pseudo scientific appraisal that the polar caps would expand and cover most of North America if we didn’t control our pollution.  Funny, how so many scientists abandoned that research in order to capture grants for the more popular “Global Warming” hypothesis.  Let’s not forget all of the warnings to turn off lights when you leave a room and to keep your thermostats at 68˚ or below in the winter.  My question is; “Why is it always about the consumer?”

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Don’t get me wrong, some good came out of the hysterical outcry of the 1970’s to clean up our planet.  With the horrific examples of pollution gone wild, like the Love Canal chemical dumping and Lake Erie catching on fire, it became easy for people to step back and realize something needed to be done. 

The youth of the 1970’s embraced the idea of a cleaner America, and it has led us to cleaner water, cleaner air and cleaner streets than any time in our country’s industrialized history.

Moving to the “bad”, political leaders and corporations have been taking advantage of our desire to do the “right thing” ever since.  We have been manipulated.  Much of what we’ve been told about the risks of using and producing energy are half-truths and some are outright lies.  It’s all about money.

Recently, we’ve been regulated into using mercury laden fluorescent lights, even though mercury unquestionably has a negative impact on the environment.  Why are we focusing on the consumer, instead of focusing on changing regulations on production that would allow for massive improvement in power plant efficiencies?  We are told to reduce our consumption of electricity, but wouldn’t it make more sense for us to produce our own power to create a net savings?

Here are some truths behind the ugly lies: 1) the greatest contributor to CO2 emissions is farm animals, not cars or power plants; 2) only 5% of nuclear waste is used nuclear material, while the rest is protective clothing, tools, and parts; 3) only one third of the energy put into a power plant comes out as electricity, the rest is wasted; 4) 5%-10% of the electricity produced is lost on the way to the consumer; 5) our electricity demand will double by 2030.

Common Sense

There is one problem that needs to be solved; “How do we responsibly produce enough electricity to satisfy a technologically advancing society?”  Believe it or not, the answer is simpler than you might think.

First, we need to change the regulations that have the power industry hamstrung.  Currently, utilities have their rates set to earn a revenue stream that provides them with a constant 10% - 13% rate of return based on operating costs.  Increases or decreases of the operating costs of electricity production are passed directly through to the consumers. The idea behind this model was to prevent utilities from charging monopoly rates for their commodity. 

The dilemma is that any revenue created in an attempt to make a plant more energy efficient or productive would have to go 100% to the customers.  If the plant developed a system for recovering heat, normally lost during production, and distributed it as a very low cost way for local homeowners to heat their homes, the utility stockholders couldn’t benefit one cent.  Or, what if energy production could be made more efficient through replacing a more expensive cooling tower with new less expensive technology?  Again, this would cost the stockholders by forcing them to incur the capital expenditure, but since their operating cost would go down it would negatively impact their revenue and in turn their total return.  This regulatory process puts a huge roadblock in the way of investing in power plant efficiencies and actually supports the building of expensive, inefficient plants.

Second, it is time we ignore the self serving and erroneous cries that nuclear power is dangerous.  Not only could we produce more clean power, but it would provide an economic stimulus by providing jobs for half a million people over for the next 20 years.  It’s also time to provide a power grid that is national and not just regional.  We need to be able to send wind power from the plains of the Midwest to Chicago, Denver, Dallas and St. Louis.  Until we have a high voltage, intelligent, power grid, we’ll be at risk of bumping our heads on the ever-increasing electrical needs of Americans.

Third, and finally, we need to do some out of the box thinking.  We have received our power from the “Power Company” our entire lives.  This has blinded us from the obvious.  No matter how many power plants we build, and how sophisticated our grid becomes, transporting electricity is a very inefficient and costly methodology for bringing power into the home. 

We need to focus our attention on providing micro-power technology that will allow all individual homes the ability to cost effectively utilize a combination of solar, wind and natural gas to make each home energy self-sufficient.  Imagine your home with a set of 24” fan blades and thin film solar panels installed on your roof.  This passive energy would be supplemented with a natural gas furnace and generator, which could not only heat your home, but also provide it with electricity.  This combination would provide uninterrupted power that could potentially cost 20% to 30% less, while providing an alternate solution to the near impossible task of doubling our national electrical output by 2030.  Now that’s a legacy this generation could be proud to leave behind.

Brian Boeheim is author of the new book Political Common Sense for America. He has trained and presented to audiences on four continents, and worked with Fortune 100 Executives to develop and implement strategic plans that have saved their companies millions of dollars. Boeheim has worked as a consultant to Cisco Systems’ Department of Defense and Global Government sales teams, and co-wrote a U.S. Customs Guide for identifying counterfeit technology. Additionally, Boeheim is a 2nd degree black belt in Kempo, an avid golfer and has worked with children with learning disabilities. He currently resides in Florida.

SOME COMMENTS:

"Electricity delivered to the home from a nuclear or coal/gas power station is substantially cheaper (and more reliable)"

Only if you discount the hidden costs of nuclear (tax subsidies for construction, maintenance during operational life, and decommissioning) and of coal/gas (paying for co2 reduction through taxes). And as for the reliability of Nuclear, a report in the UK revealed that over the last decade, there have been 1700 dangerous events within the UK nuclear industry, including one where a cooling pond was leaking and a disaster prevented only because an off-duty engineer used the laundry and noticed the water leaking in over the laundry room floor! The reprocessing plant at Thorp in the UK may need to close for a period, and cannot provide the revenue required to finance the building of new nuclear power stations (and may actually be sued by the German government for failing to provide the material it was contracted to), so guess where the energy companies are turning for funding...yep, the taxpayer!

"Clean coal" requires 20-40% more fuel to generate the same amount of energy, so the efficiency of coal fired power plants will drop to around 20% meaning a further increase in the price to consumers for coal fired energy. Not to mention, of course, that both coal and nuclear are supremely dependent on oil for both their extraction, processing and transport! All this information is freely available on your local friendly internet.

Author:
natasha-long-82395

Natasha has made a sweeping statement part way through her last paragraph. I know that in the past coal mines in Yorkshire UK used electricity derived from local coal fired power stations to run most of their operations. The only oil used as a fuel rather than as a lubricant, coolant insulator or hydrolic fluid was for the earth moving machines which were used to grade the coal stock piles. There was probably more oil used in the emploees cars to get them to work than in the whole production process from coal face to generator output.

I think that there is scope to reduce energy use in the rich world, there are several technologies which could make this happen and it might well be that the peak electrical load does go up as part of a total reduction in energy use.

Due to the design of most high voltage electrical systems a doubling of load does not need a doubling of the electrical infrastructure, in the UK a fulluy loaded system would need 50% extra infrastructure in practice the figure might be less than 50% as parts of the system already have spare capacity.

The real problem is not technology we have most of what we need and there are scientists and engineers who will be able to make the rest, where we may fall down is in lack of will power to tackle the problem.

In Europe we are going in the generaly correct direction and I belive that in the USA there are big changes going on with regards to policy on things like car fuel efficency etc.

Unfortunatly its a bit like trying to catch a train which is accelerating very slowly, theres a good chance we can catch it but to do so we need to run faster than we are doing at the moment.

Author:
martin-lee-65392

I cant believe we are still talking about nuclear power. It was a niche market, It is at the moment, and it ALWAYS will be.
There is no way the world to increase its 436nuclear reactors to a substantial number in order to be a significant share of our energy(!) portfolio (by significant I mean more than 20%).

In order to do that we must at least triple the reactors and do it in reasonable time for example 20 years. We must add at least 800 reactors which means 40 per year. This is impossible. Not in the current economical and political situation. Besides we dont have trained people, resources, uranium, etc to do this.

My question again: Why do we still keep talking about nuclear power?

dimitar-mirchev-14630

As someone who worked with radioactive elements, as so had to learn about them, I find it odd that none of the posters or the author of the article mentions the half life of plutonium. Plutonium is produced in nuclear power plants and we must store it until it's radiation degrades to a safe level, or live with it's radiation.
At present we "store" most of this in the cooling ponds at the power plants, Yucca Mountain is on hold, we have no effective way to deal with the plutonium the world is producing now, although people are trying.
Perhaps we should solve this problem before we build more nukes, put the horse before the cart so to speak.

Coal plants emit mercury into the air. Scrubbers reduce this, so the mercury can be stored in the coal ash, along with the arsenic and other stuff. The mercury is not "gone", it is concentrated instead of dispersed.
In some ways this is an improvement, and in other ways it is not. Perhaps we should decide whether or not producing all this mercury and arsenic is something we want to do at all, and focus on what is best instead of what is cheapest today.

My daughter is pregnant. Her doctor told her not to eat fish while pregnant, they have too much mercury for the fetus. I asked her how many states of the United States is this a standard Doctor recomendation for pregant women to avoid fish, and she answered without hestitation, "50 states".

The question is not whether we should stop coat plants, the question is how are we going to do it. Do we spend more money for energy, or more money for health care for our degraded bodies?

Author:
Anonymous

For more comments or to post your own go to: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/07/energy-it-just-doesnt-add-up?cmpid=WNL-Tuesday-July14-2009