Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 22, 2018 11:41 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
If you look at total primary energy used, its not quite so good.

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/FRANCE5.pdf

About half of France's total energy still comes from fossil fuels. There's a "stubborn" portion of oil (not decreasing further) and an increasing usage of natural gas. Only coal is still very slowly decreasing, which is impressive, but its clearly flatting out to an asymptotic, still significant coal use.

Here's Switzerland for comparison.

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/SWITLAND5.pdf

Same story, less nuclear, more hydro, less coal, but still a stubborn oil usage.

It is time to electrify land transport and nuclearize (nuclearfy?) large ships.

Coal and gas use for feedstock (steelmaking, fertilizer, etc.) is a stubborn one, but tolereable for a very long time if we get the other sectors off of fossil fuels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
It's interesting to compare a non-nuclear modern country that has lots of renewable energy.

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/NZ5.pdf

New Zealand, loads of hydro, geothermal, wind and biofuel. But still mostly fossil fuel powered as a whole economy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Feb 28, 2011 10:10 am
Posts: 351
Cyril R wrote:
If you look at total primary energy used, its not quite so good.

Same story, less nuclear, more hydro, less coal, but still a stubborn oil usage.

It is time to electrify land transport and nuclearize (nuclearfy?) large ships.

Coal and gas use for feedstock (steelmaking, fertilizer, etc.) is a stubborn one, but tolereable for a very long time if we get the other sectors off of fossil fuels.


How about space heating in homes and offices ? Fossil fuels are still used a lot for that purpose. Stimulating the use of heat pumps could be beneficial, I guess.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1330
Location: NoOPWA
Cyril R wrote:
It is time to electrify land transport and nuclearize (nuclearfy?) large ships.
Zoomerize.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 3:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 337
camiel wrote:
How about space heating in homes and offices ? Fossil fuels are still used a lot for that purpose.


indeed, in a modern/industrialized country about 1/3 of the primary energy use is low temperature heat

Quote:
Stimulating the use of heat pumps could be beneficial, I guess.


it' s twofold beneficial, because with high efficiency air or ground source (depending on the particular climate) heat pumps you can achieve the double target of electrify heating/condtioning and strongly decrease primary energy use, whether it' s nuclear or not, thanks to their high efficiency (a COP > 6 is today readily achievable at a low cost in temperate climates)


Last edited by Alex P on Feb 20, 2014 4:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 337
Cyril R wrote:
It is time to electrify land transport and nuclearize (nuclearfy?) large ships.



Rather than use directly nuclear energy it makes more sense to produce liquid fuels, for example methanol or DME, from it in centralized and low cost sites to power those large ships or airplans (or everything else we can't electrify directly)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
Just remember that there is a BIG efficiency loss when you go from electric to fuel to motion.
You'll need more than twice as much primary energy if you go through the chemical fuel route.

So, a plugin hybrid makes more sense to me. Even a modest battery will cover a significant portion of the vehicle transport needs.

But first and foremost - use nuclear for new baseload in the developing world. That is the lowest hanging fruit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 20, 2014 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
Using nuclear energy for maximum new electric generation is definitely the first requirement.
Bigger ships can be run by nuclear 'engines'. Cars/land vehicles could possibly be electrified. Air transport may continue to need chemical fuel.
Hydrous pyrolysis of biomass, as chemical input, may be the way to produce chemical fuel post peak oil. High temperature nuclear reactors, including LFTR or other MSR may provide energy input.
Within nuclear, some type of breeder, LFTR being one option, could produce power from fertile fuels 238U or thorium, and make it practically inexhaustible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 21, 2014 2:04 am 
Offline

Joined: May 05, 2010 1:14 am
Posts: 130
Cyril R wrote:
It's interesting to compare a non-nuclear modern country that has lots of renewable energy.

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/NZ5.pdf

New Zealand, loads of hydro, geothermal, wind and biofuel. But still mostly fossil fuel powered as a whole economy.

The graph for New Zealand's primary energy use is a bit misleading. The top colour - geothermal/solar/wind - looks to be on a par with hydro. In fact this is mostly geothermal, which being low grade heat only has a thermal efficiency of about ten percent. Hydro would be in the nineties. By the same token, unless district heating or desalination is running off a nuclear reactor its primary energy is only turning into useful power at about 33% efficiency, compared to combined cycle gas at over 50%.
The New Zealand Electricity Department did a study on nuclear power in the early seventies, and concluded that since the Maui gas field had just been discovered, we wouldn't need nuclear till the start of the 21st century. Maui's just about exhausted now, and the oil companies are pushing more offshore drilling and onshore fracking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 21, 2014 2:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 05, 2008 8:50 am
Posts: 337
Lars wrote:
Just remember that there is a BIG efficiency loss when you go from electric to fuel to motion.
You'll need more than twice as much primary energy if you go through the chemical fuel route.

So, a plugin hybrid makes more sense to me.


It' s obviously so, but there are some uses, like ships and airplanes indeed, that are impossible to electrify, so the syn fuel route is the only way to go

By the way, is DME an useful fuel for airplanes ? Large ship are basically Diesel engines and DME is an excellent fuel for Diesel, but what about airplane gas turbines ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 21, 2014 3:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1502
Short Haul airlines could be partially displaced by high speed rail, which can be electrified.


For long haul there is madness like the Reaction Engines LAPCAT proposal, which is a hypersonic airliner fueled with cryogenic hydrogen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 21, 2014 3:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
jon wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
It's interesting to compare a non-nuclear modern country that has lots of renewable energy.

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/NZ5.pdf

New Zealand, loads of hydro, geothermal, wind and biofuel. But still mostly fossil fuel powered as a whole economy.

The graph for New Zealand's primary energy use is a bit misleading. The top colour - geothermal/solar/wind - looks to be on a par with hydro. In fact this is mostly geothermal, which being low grade heat only has a thermal efficiency of about ten percent. Hydro would be in the nineties. By the same token, unless district heating or desalination is running off a nuclear reactor its primary energy is only turning into useful power at about 33% efficiency, compared to combined cycle gas at over 50%.


Good points. So geothermal is greatly exaggerated in the graph.

Here we can see this in the electricity only graph:

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/NZ2.pdf

It's interesting that fossil fuel generation (coal and gas, no oil generation for New Zealand) is actually bigger than geothermal, wind and solar combined. And hydro is clearly the big player, not geothermal as many people think. The situation is similar to Iceland.

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/ICELAND2.pdf


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 21, 2014 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2239
hydroelectric projects are a nice, low carbon source of energy but have to be co-ordinated with other uses of water. For bigger populations like China, India or the US, they can only be a small part of the solution.
I wish people would look harder at the kinetic energy of ocean currents as a source of hydro-electric power. Ocean current mills, as opposed to windmills, would be more compact and constant over time. They also carry more power.
http://geography.about.com/od/physicalg ... rrents.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 22, 2014 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 2:34 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Here and There
"Some U.S. states would also do well in such a league table, if they would be considered as "countries". Illinois (more people than Belgium or Sweden), South Carolina, New Hampshire and Vermont all have more than 50% of electricity coming from nuclear."

Let's not forget about Ontario, eh? It gets over 60 percent. Ontario is not small.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group