MIT analysis: wind farms will contribute to global warming, weather changes

[wtmusic]

"Wind power has emerged as a viable renewable energy source in recent years — one that proponents say could lessen the threat of global warming. Although the American Wind Energy Association estimates that only about 2 percent of U.S. electricity is currently generated from wind turbines, the U.S. Department of Energy has said that wind power could account for a fifth of the nation’s electricity supply by 2030.

But a new MIT analysis may serve to temper enthusiasm about wind power, at least at very large scales. Ron Prinn, TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Science, and principal research scientist Chien Wang of the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, used a climate model to analyze the effects of millions of wind turbines that would need to be installed across vast stretches of land and ocean to generate wind power on a global scale. Such a massive deployment could indeed impact the climate, they found, though not necessarily with the desired outcome.

<>

For the land analysis, they simulated the effects of wind farms by using data about how objects similar to turbines, such as undulating hills and clumps of trees, affect surface “roughness,” or friction that can disturb wind flow. After adding this data to the model, the researchers observed that the surface air temperature over the wind farm regions increased by about one degree Celsius, which averages out to an increase of .15 degrees Celsius over the entire global surface."

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/climate-wind-0312.html

.15 degree Celsius is one-tenth of the total temperature differential which James Hansen has predicted as being sufficient to surpass climate "tipping points" in the next century.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. I have some difficulty believing that a device that SUCKS kinetic energy from the environment...

...and shoves it into fuel cells, will help increasing temperatures.

The only way such devices could be harmful is if the energy necessary to manufacture and maintain them is bigger. But I don't think that's what's being argued.

[joshcryer]

2. Wind is intrinsically linked to energy balance. By building lots of wind (in this study millions)...

...you take the natural balance out of wack.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

8. You're subtracting kinetic energy. It's exactly like cooling the air.

Reducing wind speeds could theoretically heat up a place if the previously existing wind brought cooler air from elsewhere, but then the place where the cooler air was coming from would cool more. (The exact opposite effect is feared to happen if the Gulf Stream stops due to glacier melting.)

It'll take much more than what's in the OP to convince me of the correctness of this study.

[joshcryer]

9. The study uses way too many wind turbines.

It assumes from the onset a wind only substitution of energy production. Every other plan that uses wind uses solar and hydro and energy storage (V2G) to make everything work together. A wind only scenario, thus, will result in a whole crapload of turbines.

There is nothing wrong with their methodology, and they even use Jacobson's wind drag equations.

[kristopher]

3. The impact has been evaluated with better modeling than OP study.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x23617

"...the model they are using is at the wrong scale and fails to account for the individual turbine effects. Their global modeling is accomplished with vast grid cells which totally fail to simulate the effects of turbines, turbines that in aggregate actually occupy much less physical area than even one grid of their cells - even if wind were to be used on a global scale to power the entire world.

They have not incorporated any sort of physical representation of the units being modeled, and the extremely low resolution model they've employed cannot accurately capture the turbines actual effects.

The Jacobson study above involves precise analysis of the actual amount of energy transferred from the atmosphere and uses that as a basis of the conclusions.

Even Wang and Prinn do not seem to have confidence in the validity of their analysis. I have seldom seen a paper filled with so many disclaimers."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x236172#236193

[joshcryer]

6. That paper does not discuss climate impact nor does it use a GCM.

In fact, the GCM paper uses Jacobson's wind turbine drag equations in their extension of the code.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm being arrogant, but...

...freshman college physics seems enough to refute this. Basic thermodynamics.

[joshcryer]

12. Global climate models are not refuted by "freshman college physics."

[kristopher]

23. .

Energies 2009, 2, 816-838; doi:10.3390/en20400816
Investigating the Effect of Large Wind Farms on Energy in the Atmosphere
Magdalena R.V. Sta. Maria * and Mark Z. Jacobson
Atmosphere/Energy Program, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94035, USA; E-Mail: [e-mail]
September 2009

Abstract: This study presents a parameterization of the interaction between wind turbines
and the atmosphere and estimates the global and regional atmospheric energy losses due to
such interactions. The parameterization is based on the Blade Element Momentum theory,
which calculates forces on turbine blades. Should wind supply the world’s energy needs, this
parameterization estimates energy loss in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere to be ~0.007%.
This is an order of magnitude smaller than atmospheric energy loss from aerosol pollution
and urbanization, and orders of magnitude less than the energy added to the atmosphere
from doubling CO2. Also, the net heat added to the environment due to wind dissipation is
much less than that added by thermal plants that the turbines displace.


Conclusions
A BEM model was developed for the purpose of determining the forces exerted onto the atmosphere by turbine blades. This provides a more detailed parameterization for the modeling of wind turbine effects on the atmosphere. The model was evaluated against three turbines, where the power curves from the turbines were compared with model-generated power curves. The best agreement between the model and data power curves occurred at wind speeds between 5–15 m/s, which is the wind speed range that is most relevant to wind energy. When the power curves were weighted with a typical wind frequency distribution—where the majority of wind speeds that occur are between 5–15 m/s—the agreement between model and data increases significantly. Based on these results, the model was found to be sufficient for the purpose of simulating the interaction between the turbine blades and the atmosphere in the context of wind power generation. Because of the resolution of this model-it uses a number of data points along a turbine blade-it will be a good tool to use to couple with an atmospheric dynamics model in order to create a better parameterization for the presence of wind farms. The model was combined with efficiency data to estimate the energy lost from the atmosphere due to a large deployment of wind farms. The rough estimates from this model show that if the world’s energy needs were supplied by wind energy, the L1 layer over global land plus ocean would lose only 0.006%–0.008% of its energy. Even with the added energy consumption of putting hydrogen in the energy mix will only result in a loss of 0.010%–0.013%. If only the U.S. energy needs are supplied, the loss from L1 above U.S. land ranges from 0.19%–0.23%, and above global land plus ocean ranges from 0.0012%–0.0014%. Replacing U.S. onroad vehicles with wind-powered BEVs reduces energy in L1 over U.S. land by 0.04%–0.05% and over global land plus ocean by 0.00026%–0.00031%. Certainly less than 100% of the entire energy demand and vehicle energy demand will be satisfied by wind, so the actual percentages of energy loss in the L1 layer over the regions specified will likely be lower than those shown. Such losses are also estimated to be at least an order of magnitude less than energy losses due to other anthropogenic influences, such as by aerosol pollution and urbanization. Moreover, the maximum energy loss estimated in this study translates to a power density that is a few orders of magnitude less than the radiative forcing due to the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, any heating effects of this energy loss is outweighed by the thermal pollution that it will avert when wind farms displace the thermal power plants driven by fossil fuels.

In sum, the energy losses due to wind turbines, while high immediately downwind of a turbine, are quite small when averaged over large geographic regions, even if the entire world were powered by wind. A complete evaluation of the effects of wind turbines on local meteorology though, requires three-dimensional simulations of turbines interacting with the environment when the turbines are resolved. The BEM module discussed here can be used in such a resolved model to calculate these feedbacks.

[joshcryer]

25. Doesn't change the fact that the MIT studies findings are not flawed.

They did not analyze the Jacobson plan with BEVs.

[kristopher]

29. Their finding are not correct because the model had too coarse a resolution

The actual results of energy calculations from Jacobson's analysis for the entire world powered only by wind yield a number.

The model P&N use accounts for energy exchange on a grid with cells. Large cells. It presupposes X amount of transfer per cell.

The actual amount of energy exchange that would occur as shown by Jacobson's analysis (which is extremely straightforward with no real room for significant error) is less than what P&N are using for ONE cell of the global grid.

[joshcryer]

4. This is old and much more analysis needs to be done.

The climate model they use, however, is very good, so questioning the preliminary results only makes one a denialist. What is missing from the model is the oceanic effects (since it appears to cool over the oceans). If the cooling effect is larger than is modeled, then there is no cause for concern, because the energy balance is maintained and the farms will keep churning. Just keep them out of areas that are especially sensitive to warming, such as the arctic (I don't know of any wind farms being planned for the arctic).

If the cooling effect is smaller, then wind is in trouble, because without an energy variance, wind... won't blow. And some global warming models already show that wind is going to not blow as much, and when it does it will be more violent.

There was a lengthy discussion here on the forums about the paper, it is recommended.

[kristopher]

5. Better modeling has already been done. (But you knew that)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x242091#242094

[joshcryer]

7. You're wrong. You're saying Jacobson's paper is comparable to this GCM paper.

You're outright dishonest.

[kristopher]

11. The global climate model used is at too gross a scale

Tell me how Prinn and wang measure the precise transfer of energy. Even they disown the implications of their conclusions.
"Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power, urging that it be used to guide future research that explores the downsides of large-scale wind power before significant resources are invested to build vast wind farms. “We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”

The "further research" has already been done - several months before they published.

[joshcryer]

13. They used Jacobson's wind drag equations?

[kristopher]

15. And that means what *exactly*?

[joshcryer]

18. It means that when they put a turbine in the CCM* it was modeled like Jacobson would model it.

*Community Climate Model

[kristopher]

19. No it doesn't.

[joshcryer]

21. Yes it does. Jacobson did not model climate. These guys did.

[joshcryer]

22. Jacobson does *not* refute the warming finding.

All Jacobson does is help refine the analysis so we can pin down just how much warming is caused.

[kristopher]

24. .

Energies 2009, 2, 816-838; doi:10.3390/en20400816
Investigating the Effect of Large Wind Farms on Energy in the Atmosphere
Magdalena R.V. Sta. Maria * and Mark Z. Jacobson
Atmosphere/Energy Program, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94035, USA; E-Mail: [e-mail]
September 2009

Abstract: This study presents a parameterization of the interaction between wind turbines
and the atmosphere and estimates the global and regional atmospheric energy losses due to
such interactions. The parameterization is based on the Blade Element Momentum theory,
which calculates forces on turbine blades. Should wind supply the world’s energy needs, this
parameterization estimates energy loss in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere to be ~0.007%.
This is an order of magnitude smaller than atmospheric energy loss from aerosol pollution
and urbanization, and orders of magnitude less than the energy added to the atmosphere
from doubling CO2. Also, the net heat added to the environment due to wind dissipation is
much less than that added by thermal plants that the turbines displace.


Conclusions
A BEM model was developed for the purpose of determining the forces exerted onto the atmosphere by turbine blades. This provides a more detailed parameterization for the modeling of wind turbine effects on the atmosphere. The model was evaluated against three turbines, where the power curves from the turbines were compared with model-generated power curves. The best agreement between the model and data power curves occurred at wind speeds between 5–15 m/s, which is the wind speed range that is most relevant to wind energy. When the power curves were weighted with a typical wind frequency distribution—where the majority of wind speeds that occur are between 5–15 m/s—the agreement between model and data increases significantly. Based on these results, the model was found to be sufficient for the purpose of simulating the interaction between the turbine blades and the atmosphere in the context of wind power generation. Because of the resolution of this model-it uses a number of data points along a turbine blade-it will be a good tool to use to couple with an atmospheric dynamics model in order to create a better parameterization for the presence of wind farms. The model was combined with efficiency data to estimate the energy lost from the atmosphere due to a large deployment of wind farms. The rough estimates from this model show that if the world’s energy needs were supplied by wind energy, the L1 layer over global land plus ocean would lose only 0.006%–0.008% of its energy. Even with the added energy consumption of putting hydrogen in the energy mix will only result in a loss of 0.010%–0.013%. If only the U.S. energy needs are supplied, the loss from L1 above U.S. land ranges from 0.19%–0.23%, and above global land plus ocean ranges from 0.0012%–0.0014%. Replacing U.S. onroad vehicles with wind-powered BEVs reduces energy in L1 over U.S. land by 0.04%–0.05% and over global land plus ocean by 0.00026%–0.00031%. Certainly less than 100% of the entire energy demand and vehicle energy demand will be satisfied by wind, so the actual percentages of energy loss in the L1 layer over the regions specified will likely be lower than those shown. Such losses are also estimated to be at least an order of magnitude less than energy losses due to other anthropogenic influences, such as by aerosol pollution and urbanization. Moreover, the maximum energy loss estimated in this study translates to a power density that is a few orders of magnitude less than the radiative forcing due to the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, any heating effects of this energy loss is outweighed by the thermal pollution that it will avert when wind farms displace the thermal power plants driven by fossil fuels.

In sum, the energy losses due to wind turbines, while high immediately downwind of a turbine, are quite small when averaged over large geographic regions, even if the entire world were powered by wind. A complete evaluation of the effects of wind turbines on local meteorology though, requires three-dimensional simulations of turbines interacting with the environment when the turbines are resolved. The BEM module discussed here can be used in such a resolved model to calculate these feedbacks.

[joshcryer]

27. Jacobson did not use a GCM.

[joshcryer]

35. You do realize that "heat added due to wind dissipation" is fundamentally different than heat...

[joshcryer]

36. ...by combined meterological effects with feedbacks, don't you?

[joshcryer]

16. I love this. Using denialist tactics to dismiss preliminary analysis.

Of course more work needs to be done. Jacobson certainly didn't model climate.

[joshcryer]

14. Jacobson did not model climate, he modeled turbines.

[kristopher]

17. That's correct. It is a far more precise method.

[joshcryer]

20. It does not even show climate results. Jacobson's *own* conclusion:

A complete evaluation of the effects of wind turbines on local meteorology though, requires three-dimensional simulations of turbines interacting with the environment when the turbines are resolved. The BEM module discussed here can be used in such a resolved model to calculate these feedbacks.

[kristopher]

26. You don't know the difference between weather and climate yet?

[joshcryer]

28. The effect MIT found was meterological over time. Climate is just that.

[kristopher]

30. Their finding are not correct because the model had too coarse a resolution

The actual results of energy calculations from Jacobson's analysis for the entire world powered only by wind yield a number.

The model P&N use accounts for energy exchange on a grid with cells. Large cells. It presupposes X amount of transfer per cell.

The actual amount of energy exchange that would occur as shown by Jacobson's analysis (which is extremely straightforward with no real room for significant error) is less than what P&N are using for ONE cell of the global grid.



Energies 2009, 2, 816-838; doi:10.3390/en20400816
Investigating the Effect of Large Wind Farms on Energy in the Atmosphere
Magdalena R.V. Sta. Maria * and Mark Z. Jacobson
Atmosphere/Energy Program, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94035, USA; E-Mail: [e-mail]
September 2009

Abstract: This study presents a parameterization of the interaction between wind turbines
and the atmosphere and estimates the global and regional atmospheric energy losses due to
such interactions. The parameterization is based on the Blade Element Momentum theory,
which calculates forces on turbine blades. Should wind supply the world’s energy needs, this
parameterization estimates energy loss in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere to be ~0.007%.
This is an order of magnitude smaller than atmospheric energy loss from aerosol pollution
and urbanization, and orders of magnitude less than the energy added to the atmosphere
from doubling CO2. Also, the net heat added to the environment due to wind dissipation is
much less than that added by thermal plants that the turbines displace.


Conclusions
A BEM model was developed for the purpose of determining the forces exerted onto the atmosphere by turbine blades. This provides a more detailed parameterization for the modeling of wind turbine effects on the atmosphere. The model was evaluated against three turbines, where the power curves from the turbines were compared with model-generated power curves. The best agreement between the model and data power curves occurred at wind speeds between 5–15 m/s, which is the wind speed range that is most relevant to wind energy. When the power curves were weighted with a typical wind frequency distribution—where the majority of wind speeds that occur are between 5–15 m/s—the agreement between model and data increases significantly. Based on these results, the model was found to be sufficient for the purpose of simulating the interaction between the turbine blades and the atmosphere in the context of wind power generation. Because of the resolution of this model-it uses a number of data points along a turbine blade-it will be a good tool to use to couple with an atmospheric dynamics model in order to create a better parameterization for the presence of wind farms. The model was combined with efficiency data to estimate the energy lost from the atmosphere due to a large deployment of wind farms. The rough estimates from this model show that if the world’s energy needs were supplied by wind energy, the L1 layer over global land plus ocean would lose only 0.006%–0.008% of its energy. Even with the added energy consumption of putting hydrogen in the energy mix will only result in a loss of 0.010%–0.013%. If only the U.S. energy needs are supplied, the loss from L1 above U.S. land ranges from 0.19%–0.23%, and above global land plus ocean ranges from 0.0012%–0.0014%. Replacing U.S. onroad vehicles with wind-powered BEVs reduces energy in L1 over U.S. land by 0.04%–0.05% and over global land plus ocean by 0.00026%–0.00031%. Certainly less than 100% of the entire energy demand and vehicle energy demand will be satisfied by wind, so the actual percentages of energy loss in the L1 layer over the regions specified will likely be lower than those shown. Such losses are also estimated to be at least an order of magnitude less than energy losses due to other anthropogenic influences, such as by aerosol pollution and urbanization. Moreover, the maximum energy loss estimated in this study translates to a power density that is a few orders of magnitude less than the radiative forcing due to the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Also, any heating effects of this energy loss is outweighed by the thermal pollution that it will avert when wind farms displace the thermal power plants driven by fossil fuels.

In sum, the energy losses due to wind turbines, while high immediately downwind of a turbine, are quite small when averaged over large geographic regions, even if the entire world were powered by wind. A complete evaluation of the effects of wind turbines on local meteorology though, requires three-dimensional simulations of turbines interacting with the environment when the turbines are resolved. The BEM module discussed here can be used in such a resolved model to calculate these feedbacks.


Download full article (open access):
http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/pdf

[joshcryer]

32. Same old denialist arguments. Jacobson explicitly says he doesn't refute anything.

[kristopher]

33. Where did he say that and when?

His study predates the Prinn and Wang study by a few months so unless you have another source you haven't let us in on...

Do you remember the Five Precepts?

The Five Precepts:

1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
2. Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
3. Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
5. Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

Right Speech is the third of the eight path factors in the Noble Eightfold Path, and belongs to the virtue division of the path.
The definition

"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech."

Bye Bye Again.

[joshcryer]

34. When he cites all of the studies that found warming? The MIT wasn't the first.

You clearly didn't read his paper.

[joshcryer]

37. You are calling me a liar? He does not refute those studies.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. We've discussed this study before.

See here:
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=235898&mesg_id=235898

...

Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study as an argument against wind power, urging that it be used to guide future research that explores the downsides of large-scale wind power before significant resources are invested to build vast wind farms. “We’re not pessimistic about wind,” he said. “We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research.”

...

The subject line is misleading.

[Christopher Calder]

38. Renewable energy is a disaster - Thorium is the solution!

Solar and wind power schemes are inherently inefficient and expensive because they rely on natural energy sources that are far too diffuse and fluctuating to power an advanced, industrialized civilization. You don't get any solar energy at night; you get less on cloudy days, less in the morning, and less in the late afternoon. That makes large scale solar power schemes horribly inefficient no matter how high we can pump up the theoretical peak output of solar panels. The cost of energy storage systems, batteries and other complex systems on top of high panel costs makes solar impossibly expensive for large scale use. Solar advocates have suggested that we could satisfy 69% of U.S. daytime electricity needs for the year 2050 by covering 34,000 square miles of our Southwestern desert with solar panels, transforming it into a vast DEAD ZONE. Scientist Jesse H. Ausubel, Director of the Program for the Human Environment and author of “Renewable and Nuclear Heresies,” found that to meet 100% of U.S. electricity demand with wind power would require impossible around-the-clock-winds and a wind farm covering an area larger than Texas and Louisiana combined. Solar and wind power schemes are like unreliable, unpredictable employees who only show up for work part of the time, and only when they feel like it.

Most people who call themselves environmentalists are promoting policies that will lead to global starvation and a collapse of the world economy. Food equals energy and energy equals food. The more we increase the cost of energy with so-called "renewable energy" schemes, the higher the cost of food. Earth's 6.7 billion population was raised on cheap and efficient fossil fuel energy. If we don't find an equally powerful, reliable, and efficient replacement for fossil fuels, starvation rates will skyrocket and food will become so expensive that almost all Americans will need food stamps just to survive.

To produce energy we have to destroy something. Should we destroy millions of acres of land collecting energy from the wind and sunlight? Should we destroy our food supply, and our dwindling supply of vital topsoil producing biofuels? Should we destroy forests to create biomass to burn, or should we go on using energy efficient, but increasing scarce fossil fuels?

Why not destroy the most worthless substance on earth to create energy? Abundant, low cost thorium is the prefect replacement for fossil fuels because thorium is an even more potent and concentrated natural reservoir of energy. The revolutionary Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) solves all of the major problems associated with nuclear power. LFTRs transform thorium into fissionable uranium-233, which then produces heat through controlled nuclear fission. LFTRs only requires input of uranium or plutonium to kick-start the initial nuclear reaction, and as the fissionable material can come from either spent fuel rods or old nuclear warheads, LFTRs will inevitably be used as janitors to clean up old nuclear waste. Once started, the controlled nuclear reactions are self-perpetuating as long as the reactor is fed thorium. LFTRs are highly fuel efficient and burn up 100% of the thorium fed them. Light water reactors typically burn only about 3% of their loaded fuel, or about .7% of the fundamental raw uranium which must be enriched to become fissionable. As LFTR fuel is a molten liquid salt, it can be cleansed of impurities and refortified with thorium through elaborate plumbing, even while the reactor maintains full power operation. The cost savings of using a liquid fuel is like the difference between making soup vs. baking a wedding cake. Soup is cheap, and you can change ingredients very easily. The reactor works like a Crock-Pot; you keep the fuel cooking in the pot until it is over 99% burned, so LFTRs produce less than 1% of the long-lived radioactive waste of light water reactors, making Yucca Mountain waste storage unnecessary.

LFTRs produce electric power via a waterless gas turbine system that can use helium, carbon dioxide, or nitrogen gas. The reactors are small and air cooled, so they can be installed anywhere, even in a desert. Robert Hargraves, an LFTR advocate, states that "Liquid fluoride thorium reactors operate at high temperature for 50% thermal/electrical conversion efficiency, thus they need only half of the cooling required by today's coal or nuclear plant cooling towers." LFTRs will be manufactured on an assembly line, dramatically lowering costs and enabling electricity generation at a projected rate of about 3 cents per kilowatt hour, which is cheaper than burning coal for power. It has been estimated that a physically small 100 megawatt LFTR could be built for less than 200 million dollars, which is a bargain. Multiple reactors can be installed at one location and connected to a single control room. With convenient modular design, LFTRs can be transported in pieces by truck or barge for easy assembly on site. This allows for swift construction with reliable results, avoiding delays and cost overruns. Rapid assembly line construction also allows for easy updating of the design, which will improve over time like the dramatic
evolution of automobiles, airplanes, and computer chips.

A LFTR can never meltdown, because its fuel is already in a molten state by design. Any terrorists who obtained forceful entry into the reactor complex could not realistically remove any of the hot molten fissionable fuel. Coolant in LFTRs is not pressurized as in light water reactors, and the fuel arrives at the plant pre-burned with fluorine, a powerful oxidizer. This makes a reactor fire or a coolant explosion impossible. LFTRs do not require large, cavernous pressure vessels designed to contain an internal explosion of superheated steam, so LFTR enclosures are tightly fitting and compact, which makes them less expensive. The reactors will be installed underground with a thick reinforced concrete cap, making an attack by a kamikaze airplane pilot ineffective. Overheating of a LFTR expands the molten salt fuel past its criticality point, making the design intrinsically safe due to the unchangeable laws of physics. Even a total loss of operational reactor control would not cause disaster. In addition to the fuel's natural safety, any excess heat in the reactor core would automatically melt built-in freeze-plugs, causing the liquid fuel to drain via gravity into underground storage compartments where the fuel would then cool into a harmless, noncritical mass.

The United States alone has over a thousand years worth of low cost thorium fuel available from domestic sources, and total world thoriumsupplies are enormous, a ten thousand year supply or more. LFTRs can be used to manufacture synthetic gasoline or high energy methanol fuel. France's Reactor Physics Group is currently leading in LFTR research. If the United States committed a relatively modest amount of money to develop LFTRs in cooperation with France, a fully operational TOTAL ENERGY SOLUTION might be possible within as little as 5 years, because most of the basic research has already been accomplished and is well proven. LFTR research at the U.S. Oak Ridge National Laboratory was ended in 1976 because LFTRs cannot practically produce weapons grade plutonium.

See Robert Hargraves fascinating Aim High LFTR proposal at:

http://sites.google.com/site/rethinkingnuclearpower/aimhigh

For even more information, please visit my website on energy issues at:

http://biofuel.50webs.com/

[kristopher]

39. Just reviewed the manic ravings at your site.

Dude, you know nothing about our energy system, our energy needs nor the way the various energy carriers can work to meet our needs. You lack vast swaths of knowledge and as a result your conclusions are completely wrong.

Biofuels are a means of energy storage, they are not a "source" of energy. However they offer certain characteristics that are essential for many applications. The picture gets distorted when we don't take into consideration the fact that the range of applications we now use liquid fuels for is a product of the easy availability of petroleum. In fact most of the things we do with liquid fuels can be done with other energy carriers like direct electricity or batteries. Also, the internal combustion engine is one of the least efficient ways to use the energy in liquid fuels and we can easily more than triple the amount of work that we get out of one gallon of liquid fuels.

When we apply those two considerations to the problem of moving away from fossil fuels, we see that we only need liquid fuels to meet a small fraction of the applications we are now using them for, AND for those applications we only need minor fraction of what is now being used.

Your understanding of renewable energy sources and nuclear power is likewise fatally flawed.

[Dead_Parrot]

40. Welcome to DU, Chris

:hi:

Don't mind Kris. He says that to everyone.

[Statistical]

41. While I don't agree completely with your point it still made my day

to see Kris respond with his use vitriol was worth it.

The sheer irony of Kris using these words:
"Your understanding of renewable energy sources and nuclear power is likewise fatally flawed." :rofl:

[wtmusic]

42. Welcome to DU Chris, very interesting.

Re: your page:

"Partisans have made global warming into a Liberal vs. Conservative battle, but science should be politically neutral and not influenced by ideology, political agendas, or religion."

Partisans have mader global warming into a battle only in terms of PR. The science is sound, the science is definitive.

[Christopher Calder]

44. Global warming or not, we need thorium power!

We need to find an authentic replacement for fossil fuels no matter what you believe about the certainty or uncertainty of long range weather forecasting. We are running out of easily obtainable affordable fossil fuels, and we need our own local energy sources that do not have to be imported from the Middle East. The USA alone has enough thorium to last for hundreds of years before we need to even think about importing thorium from Canada, India, or other thorium rich nations.

The earth is estimated to have at least a 10,000 year supply of easily extractable thorium, and I do not know of any scientist who is so pessimistic about pure nuclear fusion reactors that they do not believe that within 1,000 years pure fusion energy sources will be economically viable. Pure fusion will likely obsolete thorium at some point, so we probably have 10 times more thorium than we will ever need to use.

Thorium reactors are safe, don’t produce allot of waste products, and take up very little space. The diffuse sources of wind and solar would take up the space of several large states if we tried to reply on them for energy. The renewable energy fad is fraudulent hype, and a false hope trumpeted by people who have not done their math homework. So many people are making money on this scam, like the guy you see on TV claiming he has been studying algae for decades and some day,…some day his work will show positive results. It an’t gonna happen and he is making a living just studying algae, not producing any real energy. Biofuels, windmills, solar farms, ocean wave energy farms, are not the answer and they never will be.

It takes so much energy to produce food that energy issues and food security are the very same vital subject. We need cheap, abundant energy to keep the earth’s population from starving to death. If you wish to convince people to commit mass suicide to reduce our carbon footprint on this planet, then good luck with that. If you are looking for real solutions then you have to be interested in thorium. Fossil fuels are highly efficient, and we need a replacement that is as least as efficient as fossil fuels. Thorium reactors can produce huge amounts of energy by turning tiny amounts of matter into energy. If you want to get clean, carbon free, cheap energy, physics is the way to do it, not chemistry or biology, and not by using the weak and fluctuating energy of wind and solar.

What good is thorium except for producing energy? You cannot build cars or televisions with it, make jewelry out of it, or eat it. Why should anyone care that we destroy some thorium to get affordable, concentrated, easily usable energy? We can turn thorium into energy without using up allot of land space, without using up allot of precious water, and without skyrocketing the price of fertilizer and food. Nature has given us the perfect fuel and we should use it and forget the Rube Goldberg energy devices that are fun to look at and think about, but which will never seriously output energy at a price we can actually afford. A thorium based economy will be a rich economy with low and stable food prices. A renewable energy based economy will collapse upon itself, and our food supply will shrink so fast that billions will starve to death, and even the wealthy will be heavily inconvenienced by the social unrest and conflict mass starvation will inevitably produce.

[wtmusic]

47. Agree 100%.

Check out this paper on thorium-based nuclear energy systems which NNadir linked to a few days ago:

http://berkeley.academia.edu/BethanyGoldblum/Papers/118381/Indirect-determination-of-the-230Th-n-f--and-231Th-n-f--cross-sections-for-thorium-based-nuclear-energy-systems

[Christopher Calder]

50. Bethany's paper on thorium

If only all scientists were as pretty as Bethany!

There are countless possible designs for thorium reactors, but I believe that the liquid fuel reactor designs are best because you never have to shut down the reactor to renew the fuel. This fact adds greatly to their economic efficiency. You refresh the fuel through plumbing while the reactor is still producing energy. Also, liquid fuel is much cheaper to make than solid fuel. India is working on a solid fuel thorium design, which is good, but not as great an idea, in my opinion. India also has the world's largest known supply of thorium. However, as thorium has no other significant uses, it has been a waste bi-product in industry, and no one has bothered to really look for it. The energy value of the thorium in fly ash from coal burning power plants has greater energy value than the carbon content of the coal itself. We have piles of fly ash all over the USA we can obtain thorium from, in addition to well known natural deposits we can easily mine.

[wtmusic]

51. Pretty? I hadn't noticed.

;)

Solid fuel reactors have their advantages too; even they only shut down every 20 months to refuel, and inspection takes longer than the refueling process. You'd have to assume that a liquid sodium reactor would have to be shut down for inspection at least that often, and there's extremely reactive sodium to drain. But the short-half life of fission products makes liquid fuel designs particularly attractive, not in the least because they help placate public safety concerns.

"The energy value of the thorium in fly ash from coal burning power plants has greater energy value than the carbon content of the coal itself." Link!?

[kristopher]

52. And in 50 years of trying India has yet to make it work.

Neither has anyone else. It is a pie in the sky non-answer the nuclear acolytes love to point to to claim a solution to several of nuclear power's problems. The trouble is, it doesn't solve them.

[joshcryer]

46. Even some of the most ardent anti-nukes here are OK with Gen IV reactors.

[Christopher Calder]

49. Why solar power is fool's gold

Simple passive solar design features for home construction and passive solar hot water heating are sound investments, but solar power is a wasteful and counterproductive investment for large scale energy production.

1) You don't get any solar energy at night; you get less on cloudy days, less in the morning, and less in the late afternoon. That makes large scale solar power schemes horribly inefficient no matter how high we can pump up the theoretical peak output of solar panels. The cost of energy storage systems, batteries and other complex systems on top of high panel costs makes solar impossibly expensive for large scale use. We need synthetic liquid fuels to run farm equipment, cars, trucks, ships, airplanes, etc., and to make synthetic fertilizers. We can manufacture these fuels with solar power, but at many times the cost of using nuclear power. You have to run synthetic fuel plants 24 hours a day to be economically viable. If you must use fossil fuel or nuclear reactor backup power at night to keep a synthetic fuel plant running, then why bother to have solar power at all? Duplication of energy resources is a needless expense. Any power plant must output power 24-7 to be economically valuable for large scale use.

2) The surface area of the earth we would need to cover with solar panels to collect significant amounts of energy makes it impossible on a practical economic and human level. Solar advocates have suggested that we could satisfy 69% of United States daytime electricity needs for the year 2050 by covering 34,000 square miles of our Southwestern desert with solar panels, thus turning it into a vast DEAD ZONE. It will never happen.

3) Solar panels will always be exposed to the weather, and their lifespan is short, about 25 years at maximum. Unlike other power systems, solar panels cannot be repaired and upgraded to extend their useful life beyond their very limited lifespan. This fact dramatically increases their cost per kilowatt hour compared to other more affordable alternatives. Who will guard solar panel installations covering millions of acres? Solar panel theft is a big problem in California right now. Giant solar ovens using mirrors are less likely to be targets of theft and are somewhat less expensive on a BTU/watts collected basis, but the land area required to produce significant amounts of energy makes them a joke. Solar power is great for running pocket calculators, remote vacation cabins, and other small scale HIGH COST per watt uses, but solar power is inherently the wrong choice for large scale power grid use.

4) As William Tucker points out in "Food Riots Made in the USA" (see http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/007jlljc.asp?page=2&pg=1 ), solar power is an extraterrestrial nuclear power system where the nuclear reactor is located 93 million miles away from us in outer space,...the sun. We need terrestrial nuclear reactors right here on earth so we can affordably capture their HIGHLY CONCENTRATED energy without taking up huge amounts of land space. Our extraterrestrial nuclear power source is great for growing crops, but its output is far too diffuse and intermittent for large scale energy grid use and for producing synthetic liquid fuels.

5) In 2009 the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which provides official energy statistics from the U.S. Government, projected the estimated cost of electricity from U.S. power plants of different varieties that will come into service in the year 2016. These average levelized costs, expressed in 2007 valued dollars, includes all costs of construction, financing, fuel costs, and all other operating costs. The EIA also lists the expected Capacity Factor (CF) for each power plant type. CF example: a power plant with an annual average operational CF of 85 generates at its rated capacity an average of 85% of the time during the year. A power plant with a CF of 100, that can be used 100% of the time, would be ideal. As capacity factor drops, economic efficiency drops, usefulness drops, and real-world costs increase.

Natural Gas in Conventional Combined Cycle @ 8.34 cents per kWh (87 CF) - Not carbon free; small footprint; cost effective and cleanest fossil fuel available.

Conventional Coal @ 9.3 per cents per kWh (85 CF) - Not carbon free; medium footprint; causes approximately 24,000 U.S. deaths per year due to air pollution, which also damages buildings. Judged in total, coal is not cost effective due to the environmental damage it creates.

3rd Generation Light Water Reactor Nuclear Power @ 10.48 cents per kWh (90 CF) - Carbon free; small footprint, very high CF, and cost effective. ***Note - As previously stated, these figures are for new construction projects coming on-line in 2016. Our older legacy light water reactors currently produce electricity at a cost of about 2 cents per kWh. In comparison, the Hoover Dam hydroelectric station currently produces electricity at just .0186 cents per kilowatt hour.

Geothermal @ 11.67 cents per kWh (90 CF) - Carbon free; high CF; small footprint and cost effective. Geothermal is not considered a renewable energy source because hot geothermal wells eventually run cold.

Wind @ 11.55 cents per kWh not including the cost of needed energy storage systems (35.1 CF) - Carbon free; extremely large footprint; not cost effective due to unreliability and very low CF. Most wind turbines shut down when wind speeds drop below 3 to 4 meters per second or rise above 25 meters per second, greatly reducing their total average energy output and making their contribution to our nation's energy grid unreliable, unpredictable, and unnecessarily costly.

Solar Thermal Mirror Oven @ 25.75 cents per kWh not including the cost of needed energy storage systems (31.2 CF) - Carbon free; extremely large footprint; not cost effective due to unreliability, high construction cost, and a CF even lower than wind power.

Solar Photovoltaic Panel Power Plant @ 38.54 cents per kWh not including the cost of needed energy storage systems (21.7 CF) - Carbon free; extremely large footprint; very high construction cost; cannot be updated after manufacture; relatively short lifespan, the lowest CF of all. Solar panels are absolutely not cost effective for large scale power production. Photovoltaic manufacturers brag of their success at producing large amounts of solar panels based on their theoretical maximum output capability, but they do not tell the media and consumers of their incredibly high costs and the fact that theses renewable power projects are like lazy employees who only show up for work a small fraction of the time.

Proposed Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor @ 6.0 cents per kWh (over 90 CF) - Carbon free; small footprint; highest CF available, highest cost effectiveness. If things go well, the actual eventual cost per kWh may be at or even lower than the original 3 cents per kWh projection which I doubled to 6 cents per kWh to allow for cost overruns. LFTR technology's tiny ecological footprint makes it the most environmentally harmless energy source available.

The only non-carbon energy sources that are seriously useful for large scale production are hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and geothermal power. Germany has spent huge amounts of money on expensive solar panel schemes and has gotten very little usable energy in return for its enormous investment. The appeal of solar and wind power is largely about poetry and symbolism, sending a love letter to mother nature saying that we care. Poetry is fine, but we need huge amounts of energy to support the 6.75 billion human inhabitants of this planet, and billions will starve to death if governments try to use solar, wind, wave energy, biofuels, and other poetically correct energy sources as a replacement for fossil fuels. It takes so much energy to produce food that big mistakes in energy production will always result in big increases in food prices, which automatically translates into dramatic increases in avoidable deaths due to malnutrition and related illness.

Christopher - http://biofuel.50webs.com/

[kristopher]

54. Nuclear power to make synthectic liquid fuels to run our society on 12% efficient gas engines.

Right.

You understand the problem perfectly and that is a perfectly formed solution.

You are brilliant. There must be thousands of scientific research papers and front line climate websites that have picked this plan up also aren't there?

Could you point me to a couple.

Start with ANY research paper that compares the available options systematically and reaches the conclusion that nuclear power is the best choice.

THEN link that to a few that have explored all the ramifications of producing synthetic liquid fuels. I mean we've had that technology down since WWII so there is probably a lot known about it. For some reason it isn't talked about much though...


THEN, if you wouldn't mind, would you show us the analysis where all the energy input used to produce the liquid fuels is somehow not wasted as heat when the liquid is combusted? Internal combustion engine autos have a real world average efficiency of around 12-15%, so I'm really curious how that compares with battery electric drive...


Of course, all that is snark since it would be pure insanity to pursue your proposal and there are no papers that support your belief.

I am curious though, as to what things in life are important to you. I mean, what is it you value that makes you not only think that crazy proposal is a good idea, but to also lead you to make all the false and misleading statements about the technologies that WILL work.

[Odin2005]

48. Welcome, and don't mind the Nuclear-haters!

:hi:

I see both nuclear and renewable as temporary measures until we finally perfect fusion power, or find a way to beam energy down from orbital solar collectors.

[Fledermaus]

43. Wind farms don't produce global warming.

They produce no green house gas. None.

They may influence local weather patterns. Similar to the city heat island effect or anthropomorphic heat.

[Statistical]

45. Greenhouse gases are not the sum of global warming.

We just happen to focus on made made greenhouse emissions because they are the component that is the most rapidly changing and the one most likely to create a runaway scenario.



The idea that just because something doesn't emit GHG it is impossible for it to contribute (or detract) from the greenhouse effect is not based on any science.

Now wind may or may not contribute to global warming (authors don't make a definitive claim but rather suggest it warrants further study) however even if it turns out to no contribute to global warming it won't be because of the reasons you name.

[joshcryer]

53. Yes, but Jacobson's misleading comparison of *heat dissipation*...

...compared to actual meteorological effects are completely asinine.