PopSci: How 29 Long-Ignored Elements Could Make or Break the Clean-Energy Revolution

[LAGC]

Depending on who you ask, these long-ignored, widely-scattered elements are either a dealbreaker or no problem at all

In December 2006, William Tahil, an energy analyst, published a paper online titled “The Trouble with Lithium.” His argument would be alarming to the many people who had placed their hopes for a cleaner, more prosperous economy on the rapid development of electric cars powered by lithium-ion batteries.

The trouble, he proposed, was that the world didn’t contain enough economically recoverable lithium to support such a switch. Moreover, the viable pockets of lithium that did exist were concentrated in just a few countries. “If the world was to swap oil for Li-Ion based battery propulsion,” he wrote, “South America would become the new Middle East. Bolivia would become far more of a focus of world attention than Saudi Arabia ever was. The USA would again become dependent on external sources of supply of a critical strategic mineral while China--home to significant lithium deposits--“would have a certain degree of self sufficiency.”

Tahil wasn’t the most credible source. Earlier that year, he had published another paper, “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre.” In it, he argued that two nuclear reactors, buried some 260 feet below the World Trade Center, were deliberately melted down at the same moment the hijacked airliners hit the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, “peak lithium” was an irresistible story. Tesla Motors and General Motors had both recently unveiled the first electric cars of the 21st century, both of which ran on lithium-based batteries. In July 2008, the U.K. Guardian summed up the issue: “With oil supplies a continuing concern, focus is switching to lithium for electric vehicles. But debate rages about how much of it is available.”

In January 2010, I attended the second-annual Lithium Supply and Markets Conference in Las Vegas. Between panel sessions, I intercepted R. Keith Evans, a geologist who has spent more than four decades studying global lithium deposits. Tahil’s paper had drawn Evans out of retirement. “It was total bullshit,” he said.

The article goes on to highlight both sides of the debate...

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/29-long-ignored-elements-could-make-or-break-clean-energy-revolution

What's scary is, China, which produces 95% of the world's rare earth metals (a group of elements heavily used in the manufacture of hybrid cars, windmills and other clean-energy technologies) has used its position to cut back on exports and even use its rare-earth monopoly as a weapon against other countries over minor infractions.

Wars in the future might not be fought over oil, but over some of these exotic minerals, which are going to be critical as we rely more and more on renewable sources of energy.

[kristopher]

1. It's far more likely to negatively impact nuclear than renewables.

There is no critical area where these rare earths are in a position to derail or significantly impact a shift to renewables. There are some marginal improvements that depend on some that are currently in short supply, but that supply can be met through the normal economic response to supply/demand signals.

The area where there actually appears to be a significant material constraint that limits an industry is in nuclear reactors.




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x293992#293992

Proceedings of IEEE: Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs

Posted by kristopher on Sat May-14-11 11:55 AM


If you're wondering where the fission fan club has been, this upcoming article in the Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) has had them apoplectic for the past day or so...



(PhysOrg.com) -- The 440 commercial nuclear reactors in use worldwide are currently helping to minimize our consumption of fossil fuels, but how much bigger can nuclear power get? In an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has concluded that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons. The results suggest that we’re likely better off investing in other energy solutions that are truly scalable.

As Abbott notes in his study, global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts (TW). Currently, the global nuclear power<2> supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (GW). In order to examine the large-scale limits of nuclear power, Abbott estimates that to supply 15 TW with nuclear only, we would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors. In his analysis, Abbott explores the consequences of building, operating, and decommissioning 15,000 reactors on the Earth, looking at factors such as the amount of land required, radioactive waste, accident rate, risk of proliferation into weapons, uranium abundance and extraction, and the exotic metals used to build the reactors themselves.

“A nuclear power station is resource-hungry and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,” Abbott told PhysOrg.com. “The dream of a utopia where the world is powered off fission or fusion reactors is simply unattainable. Even a supply of as little as 1 TW stretches resources considerably.”

...Of course, not many nuclear advocates are calling for a complete nuclear utopia, in which nuclear power supplies the entire world’s energy needs. But many nuclear advocates suggest that we should produce 1 TW of power from nuclear energy, which may be feasible, at least in the short term. However, if one divides Abbott’s figures by 15, one still finds that 1 TW is barely feasible. Therefore, Abbott argues that, if this technology cannot be fundamentally scaled further than 1 TW, perhaps the same investment would be better spent on a fully scalable technology....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55418743/Nuclear-Power-and-World-Energy-by-Derek-Abbott-Professor


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x293992#293992

[LAGC]

2. You may be right.

But as that article points out, America is sitting on at least 13 million metric tons of rare-earth deposits, four million tons of lithium, and significant deposits of other energy-critical elements. And mining companies have announced plans for rare-earth mines in Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Kazakhstan, and Vietnam.

So hopefully we won't run out of rare-earth supplies before we run out of oil. If anything, it shows that the transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewables needs to happen much faster, as we're in a race against the clock here.

[txlibdem]

3. Plus Lithium reactors put out 200 times the energy per pound than Uranium reactors

And a tiny fraction of waste, and the waste need only be kept contained for about 200 years (the more radioactive elements are burned up in the reactions that naturally happen inside a Lithium cycle reactor).

A lifetime of energy from a Uranium nuclear plant fits in a coke can.
A Thorium nuclear power plant will provide power for your lifetime with a quantity the size of a marble.

Coal... Well let's just say you'd better have a *lot* of room for the coal waste.

[kristopher]

4. You keep repeating this meaningless promotional ad for thorium.

It was addressed at the DU link in post 1 above
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x293992#294233

Posts 7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16, and 17 - where you finally admit it isn't an option.

[txlibdem]

5. You keep fighting against zero-carbon energy sources - what's that a promotional ad for???

America did all of the prototype work in the 1960s for Thorium Cycle reactors - congress pulled the funding because, and only because, it could *not* be used to make nuclear bombs.

Yet you fight against nuclear power *because of proliferation risk* while at the same time you do everything you can to deny the facts about Thorium reactors: it just doesn't fit into your anti-nuker world view. Well, too bad. Mountain top removal doesn't fit into my world view, nor does the tons and tons of Uranium, Thorium, Radium, Radon, Mercury, Arsenic, Lead, and dozens of other toxic heavy metals that fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas spew openly into the air that our kids and grandkids breathe, into the water they drink and onto the land in open pits for the wind to blow wherever it will land.

Our descendants will judge us one day. I'm confident that mine will say that zero-carbon energy sources was the right decision. What do you think your descendants will say about your pro-coal/pro-natural gas position???

[kristopher]

6. Zero carbon nukes? Do you have a full fuel cycle analysis proving that?

Because what I've read tells me that large-scale deployment of nuclear technology leaves us with emissions that are on par with natural gas.

[txlibdem]

7. Which "full fuel cycle analysis" is that???

What a great coincidence that it concludes that natural gas is the winner... How unlike you Kristopher!

PS, as you are so fond of bringing up, Thorium cycle reactors haven't yet been commercialized. Which fuel cycle are you analyzing?

[kristopher]

9. Waiting for the analysis that supports your statement that thorium reactors are zero emissions

[txlibdem]

10. You made the statement, it's on you to back it up or retract it

G-O-O-G-L-E

[kristopher]

11. Post5 txlibdem: You keep fighting against zero-carbon energy sources - what's that a promotional ad

Prove that nuclear is a zero emissions technology.

Sci Eng Ethics (2009) 15:19–23 DOI 10.1007/s11948-008-9097-y
Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
Received: 9 September 2008 / Accepted: 17 September 2008 / Published online: 21 October 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract

Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’ However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.


Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’

However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons.

(i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content.

(ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used.

(iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies.

Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic.

Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

[txlibdem]

12. K.post#9 "Thorium" ... K.post#11 "Uranium"

We seem to be on two different pages.

If I understand you correctly, you are trying to prove that Thorium mining will release some green house gases and you're using a paper about Uranium mining to do so. Not sure if one equates to the other. Here's why:

"It (meaning Thorium) is a by-product of the extraction of rare earths from monazite sands."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

So can you pin all the green house gases released in the mining of rare earth metals onto Thorium? Well, I guess you can, Kris, because that's how you roll, right?

[TheWraith]

8. Do you have a full fuel cycle analysis for wind and solar power?

Because those are going to come out worse.