Posted by:

Charles Barton

Posts

About

About Charles Barton:

Blogger

Nuclear Green

I am a retired counselor. My father was a nuclear scientist and I have had a life long interest in and fascination with his work.

See entire profile »

Comments

Connect

Please login or register to connect with this user.

A Message To The "Blue Ribbon Commission"

Like it?

comments

Posted May 17, 2011 with 198 reads

Keywords: blue ribbon commission, cleantech, energy, innovation, nuclear, Environmental Policy, Energy

We need to boldly go into the uncharted energy future where no one has gone before. Climate scientists tell us that about 70% of our energy resources, currently derived from fossil fuels, need to find substitutes. For many current energy uses including,

1. 1. Seaborn transportation
  2. Industrial process heat
  3. Peak, backup and load following electricity

renewable substitution seems unlikely, and current nuclear technology is too costly and inefficient. Disruptive innovation, disruptive technology is called for.

Recenty the Reactor & Fuel Cycle Technology Subcommittee of the “Blue Ribbon Commission” wrote,

No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technologies including current or potential reprocess or recycle technologies have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decade.

No blue ribbon. No ribbon at all. Look again.

http://theenergycollective.com/charlesbarton/57511/not-ready-prime-time-subcommittee-speaks

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/05/confusion-will-not-end-for-everyone.html

» Already a member? Login now to comment!

» Not a member? Register to comment!

Like it?

CharlesBarton said:

Kiem, you are right that the story is being told that shale gas is disruptive, however, other stories arebeing told and they have not been disproven. The stories are that the shale gas reserve is a whole lot less than claimed.shale gas is not nearly as good for casrbon mitigation as claimed, and that shale gas is not good for the aquifer water supply. Untill these stories are demonstrated false, shale gas cannot be 100% relied on.

» Login or register now to comment!

Tue, 2011-05-17 16:58 — CharlesBarton

Like it?

Geoffrey Styles said:

Charles,

Even if all those caveats were correct, and I have reason to believe they're not, shale would still be disruptive, because it is already disruptive. To wit, the quantity of shale gas already being produced, contributing roughly a quarterof US gas output today, has in just a few years: reversed the seemingly inevitable growth of US natgas imports, slashed domestic natgas prices--in the process altering the global market for LNG and enabling gas-fired power to capture significant market share from coal--created a realistic possibility of displacing part of our oil use in transportation with gas, and made some wind power installations less attractive. That's as disruptive as anything I could have imagined a few years ago for this time frame.

» Login or register now to comment!

Tue, 2011-05-17 21:35 — Geoffrey Styles

Like it?

CharlesBarton said:

Geoffry,//first, shale gas is primarily filling in gaps in gas production left be the decline in conventional natural gas output. Conventional output hs aleardy peaked.

I do not consider the last word on natural gas to have been said. Yet even if we discount all of the other arguments against natural gas being disruptive, in order for natural gas to be truly disruptive, it must be possible to produce enough natural gas to replace a substantial amount of coal and/or oil. It is by no means clear that the replacement of other fossil fuels by natural gas will be possible. Douglas B. Reynolds and Marek Kolodziej argue that natural gas production in the United States and Southern Candida will peak in 2013. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/2/269

The Canadian natural gas industry reportedly has already reached its peak production. http://peakoil.com/production/canadas-peak-natural-gas-crisis/

Although the EIA projects increases in natural gas production at least until 2035, the EIA projections suggests that the the production will only be 10% higher in 2035 than it is today. The Post-Carbon institute reports "Even assuming the EIA forecast for growth in shale gas production can be achieved, there is little scope for wholesale replacement of coal for electricity generation or oil for transportation in its outlook. Replacing coal would require a 64% increase of lower-48 gas production over and above 2009 levels, heavy vehicles a further 24% and light vehicles yet another 76%. This would also require a massive build out of new infrastructure, including pipelines, gas storage and refueling facilities, and so forth. This is a logistical, geological, environmental, and financial pipe dream."http://www.postcarbon.org/report/331901-will-natural-gas-fuel-america-in

This is hardly disruptive as far as fossil fuels substitution is concerned. Thus it cannot be said that natural gas will replace other fossil fuels during the coming decades. The need for disruptive energy technologies still exists, and has to be included among energy goals.

» Login or register now to comment!

Wed, 2011-05-18 09:28 — CharlesBarton

Like it?

Geoffrey Styles said:

Charles,

I don't disagree that shale gas output is unlikely to increase by enough to displace most coal in power and most diesel in heavy vehicles. However, if that's your definition of disruptive I'd suggest it's far too strict, at least in terms of economic disruption. Because prices are set at the margin, a much smaller erosion of market share than you propose could drastically alter the profitability of the coal industry or the refining industry. Ask refiners whether displacing 7% of their gasoline output with ethanol has affected their margins.

» Login or register now to comment!

Thu, 2011-05-19 09:33 — Geoffrey Styles

Like it?

CharlesBarton said:

Geoffrey you are correct that this is an example of disruptive innovation, However, it does not fit well into lists of disruptive innovations, which focus on replacement technologies:

* Personal computers replacement for Minicomputers, Workstations. Word processors

* Downloadable Digital Media replacement for CDs, and DVDs.

* Mini steel mills replacement for vertically integrated steel mills

* Digital photography replacement for Chemical photography

It would appear that the concept of disruptive innovation needs to be better articulated.

» Login or register now to comment!

Thu, 2011-05-19 11:03 — CharlesBarton

Like it?

CharlesBarton said:

» Login or register now to comment!

Tue, 2011-05-17 16:57 — CharlesBarton

Like it?

klem said:

"Disruptive innovation, disruptive technology is called for."

We have it already, its called shale gas. There is so much shale gas it will provide for our needs for the next 200 years. It is everywhere and it is cheap cheap cheap! Wahoo!

Cheers

» Login or register now to comment!

Tue, 2011-05-17 15:42 — klem

Please note: Your first comment as a registered user will be held for moderation up to 24 hours (usually less). For more information about comments on our site, please read our FAQ and terms of use.

Follow @energycollectiv

Get TEC's daily digest!