Category:

Argonne Energy Slam

4/8/2014

By Lenka Kollar

Last week Argonne National Laboratory held an Energy Slam featuring four Argonne researchers to debate non-fossil energy sources. If you missed the webcast, here's a great recap. Each presenter had 10 minutes to give the case for their energy source and then the audience voted by clapping for their favorite.

Nuclear - J’Tia Taylor, nuclear engineer and Nonproliferation Technical Associate at Argonne (pictured above)

The 1957 Disneyland episode Our Friend the Atom
Reliable, efficient, near-zero emissions
Lowest mortality rate of ANY electricity source
Doesn't need back-up fossil plant (like wind and solar)
Lowest carbon emitting and no greenhouse gases

Wind - Guenter Conzelmann, head of Argonne’s Wind Power Technologies and Analysis Program

Zero fuel, no waste
Doesn't run the risk of major nuclear accidents
23 fold increase in wind capacity over the last 15 years (globally)
Wind is variable because of weather but we can manage it
70% of everything that goes into a wind turbine is made in the U.S.

Biofuels - Jennifer Dunn, head of Argonne’s Biofuel Life Cycle Analysis Team

The other sources only work if we can electrify the transportation sector
Hard to beat the energy density of liquid fuels
We can convert landfill waste to biofuel
Not just corn ethanol, but also waste and energy crops, algae, oil crops, and soy
Lots of interest for biofuels in aviation, both military and commercial

Solar - Seth Darling, nanoscientist who focuses on solar energy conversion

All energy is actually solar energy (except man-made nuclear)
Feasible to use about 2% of land in U.S. for solar
Solar prices have been coming down drastically
Can design solar panels into architecture
Can design grid to handle variability and utilize energy storage
Democratization of energy because you don't need a utility and can sell back to grid

All of the presenters made a great case for their energy source and of course the answer is an "all of the above" approach. However, Argonne used a tool to measure the decibel level of the audience applause and determined that Seth Darling and his solar presentation had the most support. Probably because he brought a prop (pictured above); a flexible solar panel on which he was charging his phone!

Watch the full video of the Argonne Energy Slam here.

Which energy source gets your vote?

0 Comments

Congress passes new Clean Energy Act

4/1/2014

2 Comments

By Lenka Kollar

Congressmen have long disagreed on global warming and the need for clean energy but the two sides of of the isle finally came together on legislation that will drastically reduce carbon emissions. The game-changer is actually the oldest form of energy used by man: wood-burning fire.

Greenpeace heavily advocating for the passing of this bill because when trees are grown sustainably and burned for heat, the process is carbon-neutral. "This is the cleanest form of energy we've got," says President Obama, "Forget windmills and solar cells, the people in the dark ages had it right. This bill is our first step to fighting climate change."

The new Clean Energy Act calls for phasing out of all electric power plants by 2020 and requirements for all new construction to contain fireplaces. The Department of Energy is also working on an efficient wood-burning engine for cars and long-lasting candles for indoor lighting. The EPA estimates that carbon emissions should decrease back to pre-industrialization levels by 2040 and that climate change will no longer be an issue.

Rumors on the Hill also indicate that bills for demilitarization and outlawing marriage are being negotiated.

Happy April 1st!

2 Comments

Are humans enemies to the Earth?

3/18/2014

2 Comments

By Lenka Kollar

Dr. Patrick Moore was there for the beginnings of Greenpeace and then later co-founded the CASEnergy Coalition, which is a pro-nuclear energy organization. Moore's testimony before a senate committee earlier this year spiked some controversy. You can read the highlights here but I think the most striking thing about his testimony was the following:

Teaching children that “the human species is a separate, evil thing from nature is extremely damaging to their orientation of life.”

This statement is in reference to the climate change movement and how we are acting like we are the absolute enemies to the Earth and will cause its, and our own, destruction.

I believe that humans, even in an industrialized society, can work with "mother nature" and not destroy the Earth. And, the very notion that this is possible is something that we should consider. I think that many people think that in order avoid climate change, or any man-made effect on the Earth, we need to drastically reduce our population and go back to "caveman days." However, there is an equilibrium that we can reach to not destroy our environment. Reliable and clean base-load electricity should be part of the plan and nuclear energy can play a big role.

How do we move towards a more sustainable future?

2 Comments

McCain gives up on climate change due to anti-nuclear left

3/4/2014

0 Comments

By Lenka Kollar

A colleague of mine sent me this excerpt from an interview with John McCain on TIME.com and I felt compelled to share it with my readers. McCain talks about many political issues in his interview but this struck me as so honest, and frankly, sad.

McCain did used to be very engaged on the issue of climate change and I remember him talking about building 45 nuclear reactors by 2030 during his 2008 presidential campaign. My fellow nuclear engineering students at Purdue were so excited about this prospect.

Q. You used to be very engaged on the issue of climate change?

I’m still interested in it. And I think there are a lot of things that we can do like this transition that we’re making to natural gas thanks to our resources and I still believe in nuclear power as one of the big parts of the answers, and that’s almost impossible to get. And I think we need to address greenhouse gas emissions. But I try to get involved in issues were I see a legislative result… But there’s going to be no movement in the Congress of the United States certainly this year and probably next year. So I just leave the issue alone because I don’t see a way through it, and there are certain fundamentals, for example nuke power, that people on the left will never agree with me on. So why should I waste my time when I know the people on the left are going to reject nuclear power? I don’t believe that you can really succeed in reducing greenhouse gases unless you have a lot of nuclear power plants. They’re against them. Well, okay, I move on to other issues.

According the quote above, McCain basically gave up on his nuclear dreams because the people on the left are going to reject it, even though they are the ones primarily concerned about climate change. This kind of thinking has to stop for us to make any progress climate change. Politicians shouldn't be making these technical decisions but instead taking the advice of the research scientists and engineers at the U.S. Department of Energy to make effective policies. I don't agree with McCain moving on the other (easier) issues because we need practical people like him on the right side of aisle.

What do you think will make Congress move forward on effective climate change legislation?

0 Comments

Exelon may close nuclear plants if energy costs don't recover

2/11/2014

5 Comments

By Lenka Kollar

Chicago-based Exelon is one of the biggest nuclear energy providers in the United States with 10 nuclear power plants, 6 of them in Illinois. Low natural gas prices and subsidies for renewables have driven down the price of electricity. Because of this, Exelon may need to shut down nuclear power plants in order to remain profitable.

Although the uranium fuel is not expensive, nuclear plants are more expensive to run than other types of plants because of the high costs associated with strict federal regulations. Nuclear plants need more security and highly-trained employees and also pay high fees to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Natural gas and coal plants do not require the same measures and licenses and therefore are cheaper to operate, even if nuclear fuel is very cheap.

It seems like a complete waste to shut down a nuclear power plant because natural gas prices are low, right now. Natural gas prices have been extremely volatile in the past and there is absolutely no guarantee that they will remain low in the future. The federal government is also inhibiting nuclear energy by providing subsidies for renewables. Nuclear energy also emits no greenhouse gas emissions and should have access to this funding if it is provided to other "green" forms of energy.

Many people argue that the United States is a free market and that the government should not choose favorites by providing subsidies to some forms of energy and not others. This is a very controversial subject, especially in the debate of climate change and trying to reduce carbon emissions.

People in the nuclear community say that existing nuclear power plants are assets to this country because of the high initial investment, reliable baseload power, and number of jobs that they provide. Exelon argues that it should be payed a higher price for baseload electricity over intermittent electricity from wind and solar generators.

Should the government intervene by subsidizing nuclear power plants to stay open or let the "free market" take over?

5 Comments

Climate change a hot topic at the ANS opening plenary

11/11/2013

14 Comments

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) Winter Meeting in Washington, DC, is underway with the opening plenary this morning featuring prominent speakers from industry, government, and congress (former). A common topic between some of the speakers has been climate change, which is surprising because the ANS has traditionally not addressed the issue of climate change because we are a technical organization for nuclear technology, and do not research climate science. However, many ANS members strongly believe that nuclear energy needs to be a large part of the energy mix in order to mitigate the effects of climate change.

The opening plenary featured current U.S. Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz (pictured above), who outlined the President's action plan for addressing climate change. The three pillars of his plan are mitigation, adaptation, and international cooperation. Most notably, the plan is based entirely on existing authorities and not new legislation. This means that organizations within the government can use their current authority to institute rules or procedures to achieve the goals in the climate action plan. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making rules for power plants that include carbon capture. Also speaking in the opening plenary, James Rogers, the board chairman of Duke Energy (one of the largest nuclear power plant operators), has a different opinion. He states that addressing climate change should be the role of Congress and not the EPA and that new climate change and energy legislation is needed.

The American Nuclear Society recently issued a policy statement on Nuclear Energy's Role in Climate Change Policy which states:

"While the science of climate change is still maturing, the risks presented by rising temperatures across the globe are sufficiently large to justify enactment of policies at the national and international level."

Secretary Moniz cautions against usithe statement that the science of climate change is still maturing. We do not want to devalue the science that does exist and we need to make the point that actions on mitigating climate change need to happen now. Moniz also states that there is not one magic solution to meeting our energy needs and that we must take an "all of the above" approach. Low-carbon solutions will be different across the world and different in regions across the United States. What works for one area, like solar in the Southwest, will not necessarily work in other regions. The ANS also agrees that nuclear energy is not the solution, but rather that nuclear energy needs to be included in the energy mix in order to effectively mitigate climate change.

Do you think new legislation is needed to address climate change in the United States or are existing authorities (e.g. EPA rules) enough?

14 Comments

Forward>>

undo your thinking

listen to the facts

absorb new ideas

Argonne Energy Slam

Congress passes new Clean Energy Act

Are humans enemies to the Earth?

McCain gives up on climate change due to anti-nuclear left

Exelon may close nuclear plants if energy costs don't recover

Climate change a hot topic at the ANS opening plenary

Archives

Categories

undo your thinkinglisten to the factsabsorb new ideas

Argonne Energy Slam

Congress passes new Clean Energy Act

Are humans enemies to the Earth?

McCain gives up on climate change due to anti-nuclear left

Exelon may close nuclear plants if energy costs don't recover

Climate change a hot topic at the ANS opening plenary

Archives

Categories

undo your thinking

listen to the facts

absorb new ideas