Energy Physics
XYLENE POWER LTD.
Science and professional engineering relating to:
ENERGY AND SOCIETY; ENERGY PHYSICS;
NUCLEAR POWER; ELECTRICITY;
CLIMATE CHANGE; LIGHTING CONTROL;
INTEGRATED ZERO EMISSION ENERGY PLAN (INZEM);
Hydrocarbon and district heating pipeline matters are included in the ELECTRICITY section under the heading:
ENERGY TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION.
Synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuel production is included in the ELECTRICITY section under the heading:
ENERGY STORAGE.
This website focuses on: climate change and the practical electricity system changes required to sustainably and economically meet mankind's energy, power and heat requirements without combustion of fossil hydrocarbons.
Every life form either adapts to changes in its surrounding climate or it ceases to exist. Today there is an ongoing increase in average Earth surface temperature due to planet Earth absorbing more radiant energy than it emits. This average temperature increase is known as global warming.
Climate change triggered by global warming is now an imminent threat to all large land animal species, including humans. This imminent threat was concisely and accurately summarized by 16 year old Greta Thunberg in her September 2019 oral address to the United Nations.
Global warming is primarily a result of combustion of fossil fuels by an increasing world human population. The products of combustion of fossil fuels have caused an increase in the rate of Earth's solar radiant energy absorption and a decrease in the rate of Earth's thermal radiant energy emission. The resulting ongoing net radiant energy absorption is causing global warming. The consequences are increased droughts, crop failures, insect infestations, wild fires, violent storms, polar ice melting, floods, sea level rise, species extinctions and large scale human migration. Preventing further global warming requires providing sufficient non-fossil energy and power to meet human needs, repricing electricity and leaving fossil fuels in the ground.
In Canada and the USA no political party is realistically facing the issue of providing consumers sufficient non-fossil power when and where they need it to enable leaving fossil fuels in the ground. In Ontario in 2018 about 85% of all energy consumed was supplied by combustion of fossil fuels. The remaining 15% of all energy consumed came from non-fossil sources (hydro, CANDU nuclear, wind and solar) and was delivered to consumers via electricity.
The "Green New Deal" concept of using only renewable energy to reduce fossil fuel consumption by 50% in 10 years is completely unrealizable across Canada because renewable energy is seasonal, because wind and solar power are intermittent with less than 30% availability and because due to both geographical and cost constraints the amounts of energy storage, related generation and related supporting transmission required to make renewable energy dependable cannot be built.
In order to displace fossil fuels for supply of power and heat Canadians must obtain equal amounts of power and heat from non-fossil sources when and where required. There is only one non-fossil technology with the capacity to economically, sustainably and dependably fully displace fossil fuels everywhere. That technology is liquid sodium cooled Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs) fueled by depleted uranium (U-238) with fuel recycling.
In the future, after FNRs have bred a sufficient supply of fissile start fuel, FNRs can be supplemented by thorium (Th-232) molten salt thermal neutron breeder reactors. With appropriate chemistry and suitable fuel breeding there is sufficient U-238 and Th-232 to meet world energy needs for thousands of years. Other non-fossil energy technologies, including existing water moderated nuclear reactors fuelled by U-235, are not sustainable, not dependable or not economic. A further advantage of FNRs with fuel recycling is that they can reduce production of long lived nuclear waste by more than 1000 fold as compared to existing water cooled nuclear reactors.
The necessity for large scale deployment of liquid sodium cooled FNRs is a blunt reality that western elected governments have yet to accept. Today Russia, China and India are far ahead of Canada and the USA in implementation of FNRs and thorium thermal neutron breeder reactors.
In North America in each of 2017 and 2018 the financial costs reasonably attributable to rapid climate change exceeded $300 billion per year. Escalating storm, fire and crop damage, Arctic ice melting and sea level rise are constantly in the news. Denial of the obvious is no longer an acceptable political response.
PUBLIC EDUCATION:
One of the most difficult issues relating to funding changes in energy systems is lack of public education in the physical sciences. Few career politicians and even fewer voters have sufficient grasp of physics and engineering to make rational energy policy decisions.
Public opinion has been biased by parties with short term vested financial interests. For four decades the fossil fuel industry has prevented market share loss to nuclear energy by: corrupting politicians, funding anti-nuclear groups and engaging in deceptive advertising. Fossil fuel production has increased in spite of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration and melting of the polar ice pack. The solution to this information bias problem lies in improving the public education core curriculum with respect to energy and power matters and in removal of all governmental incentives relating to fossil fuel extraction, processing, transport and use. This web site attempts to address the public education deficiency.
Public opinion is further biased by selfish hedonism. Older people are often reluctant to make long term investments in education and sustainable non-fossil energy infrastructure that will only materially benefit younger persons. In this respect the concentration of wealth and power amongst older persons is a threat to the long term sustainability of human life on planet Earth.
In North America the tolerance of young people for continued political inaction on the issue of climate change is approaching a breaking point. Climate change related policies are likely to be important issues in coming elections.
INTEGRATED ZERO EMISSION ENERGY PLAN:
The Integrated Zero Emission (INZEM) Energy Plan is an engineering plan which identifies the only practical path for economic elimination of fossil fuels from the Canadian energy sector by the year 2070, so as to eventually comply with Canada's international climate change commitments. This plan was developed during the period November 2017 to May 2018 by a senior engineering team consisting of Paul Acchione, Peter Ottensmeyer and Charles Rhodes. Implementation of the INZEM plan requires: immediate cancellation of all new fossil fuel infrastructure investments, repricing of electricity as described on the web page titled:
INTERRUPTIBLE ELECTRICITY,
prompt adoption of fast neutron reactors as described on the web page titled:
FAST NEUTRON REACTORS,
and recycling of used CANDU reactor fuel as described on the web page titled:
OTTENSMEYER PLAN.
There is no other viable alternative for sustainably meeting Canada's 2070 international CO2 emission reduction commitments.
ENERGY POLICY:
Due to failure of both Canadian federal and provincial governments to promptly make the necessary public policy changes Canada's 2030 CO2 emission reduction commitments, made in Paris in 2015, are already unattainable. The fundamental concept that Canadian politicians have failed to grasp is that the CO2 emission reduction targets set in Paris in 2015 can only be met if fossil carbon is left in the ground. Increasing fossil carbon extraction and reducing fossil carbon emissions are mutually exclusive. New investments in fossil fuel infrastructure will result in stranded assets and increased national debt. The federal Liberal government's May 2018 commitment of $12 billion of Canadian federal taxpayer funds to an increase in Trans-Mountain pipeline capacity was a complete repudiation of its 2015 undertakings with respect to the Paris agreement on climate change. These taxpayer funds would be far better used for levering production of nuclear power.
Nuclear power should be complemented by nuclear fuel recycling in Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs) to increase the fissile fuel resource by about 100 fold and to reduce the long lived nuclear fuel waste stream by about 1000 fold.
Conceptually there is nothing wrong with expanding use of renewable energy, but the present system of retail electricity pricing is not consistent with effective use of intermittent surplus non-fossil electrical energy. Governments must reprice electricity in order to enable effective use of all of the available non-fossil electrical energy. Presently about 70% of the wind generated electricity in Ontario is discarded for lack of a suitable retail electricity price structure. This issue costs rural ratepayers about $1 billion per year in unnecessary fossil fuel expenditures, causes corresponding excess CO2 emissions and points to entrenched deep incompetence and corruption within the Ontario government.
A practical remedial measure is to use intermittent surplus non-fossil electrical energy to produce both electrolytic hydrogen and heat for liquid fossil fuel displacement.
Fossil fuel exports should be replaced with exports of high energy content foodstuffs and high energy content chemicals such as ammonia, aluminum, lithium, nickel, sodium, nitrate fertilizers, synthetic jet fuel and methyl cyclohexane (a reuseable hydrogen transport liquid) that can be synthesized or refined using nuclear energy.
There is merit in near term Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports only to the extent that foreign CO2 emissions are reduced when natural gas displaces coal and oil for production of heat and electricity. However, the 2.5 um particulates emitted by natural gas fired combustion turbines accelerate ice melting and cause human asthma.
The climate change problems will continue to worsen until decades after mankind collectively decides to leave fossil hydrocarbons in the ground. There must be a widespread acceptance of use of fast neutron fission energy in place of fossil fuel energy. Due to both intermittency and local insufficiency in most jurisdictions the renewable energy supply cannot meet the needs of the present human population. However, there is sufficient primary fuel for fast neutron reactors to meet mankind's resonable energy needs for thousands of years. The existing water moderated nuclear reactor technology is not sustainable because it requires about 100X more natural uranium per kWht of thermal output than do fast neutron reactors with fuel recycling.
This author believes that it is morally unacceptable for people living today to act in a manner that deprives future human generations of an equal quality of life.
The other big public policy issue with respect to energy is reducing the world's human population. Between 1960 and 2010 Canada reduced its average human female fertility from 3.9 children per woman to 1.6 children per woman. While human population control is not a main subject on this web site many nations could benefit by adopting the Canadian social policies which led to this reduction in average Canadian human female fertility.
FOSSIL HYDROCARBON DISPLACEMENT:
1) Complete displacement of fossil hydrocarbons will require a several fold expansion in electricity system capacity using only non-fossil prime energy. The required electricity system capacity increase can be minimized by siting small nuclear power plants in cities to minimize the required amount of electricity transmission and to allow direct use of reactor supplied heat.
2) If this electricity system capacity expansion is further delayed the atmospheric thermal runaway process will likely become impossible to stop.
3) The available significant non-fossil energy sources are hydroelectric, nuclear, solar and wind.
4) In most jurisdictions the economic hydroelectric capacity is already fully exploited. In most industrialized countries nuclear electricity generation is much less expensive than intermittent solar and wind electricity generation in combination with the extra: power transmission, energy storage and related reserve power generation capacity required to achieve electricity supply dependability.
THE NUCLEAR ALTERNATIVE:
In most jurisdictions the available renewable energy supply and energy storage options are not sufficient for complete displacement of fossil fuels, so rapid deployment of advanced nuclear power reactors and corresponding electricity transmission/distribution is essential.
THE CASE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY:
Michael Shellenberger presents the case for nuclear energy
1) There is insufficient public recognition that the cost of nuclear electricity delivered to an urban load is much less than the cost of equal reliability wind and solar energy delivered to the same urban load. A faulty electricity price structure is largely to blame. Nuclear electricity kWh measured at the generator are more expensive than wind generated kWh measured at the generator but unlike wind, nuclear electricity is dependable, is 3 fold less expensive to transmit per kWh-km, involves about 4 fold shorter average transmission distances, does not require expensive or unavailable seasonal energy storage, does not incur energy storage related losses and does not require balancing generation.
2) These issues collectively make dependable electricity delivered to an urban load from a nuclear power station several fold less expensive than equally dependable electricity supplied by wind and solar generation.
3) There are many types of nuclear reactors. However, only liquid sodium cooled Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs) provide the combined economic fuel sustainability and long lived nuclear waste elimination required for complete fossil fuel displacement. FNRs have inherent safety features that are not available in water moderated reactors and can be designed to avoid production of decommissioning waste.
4) FNRs require reprocessing of recycled nuclear fuel to minimize natural uranium consumption and to avoid production of long lived nuclear waste.
5) FNRs typically require about 20% plutonium in the initial core fuel. In order to rapidly deploy FNRs the limited supply of plutonium must be conserved, not buried or expended as fuel in water moderated fission reactors. To prevent nuclear weapon proliferation FNRs should be operated so as to produce the plutonium isotope Pu-240 along with Pu-239.
6) After uranium fueled liquid sodium cooled FNRs are fully deployed their U-238 fuel supply can can be extended as much as 5 fold using Th-232. The Th-232 readily breeds into U-233. However, unlke fissioning of Pu-239, fissioning of U-233 does not yield enough spare neutrons per fission to significantly grow the core fuel inventory as required to increase the number of reactors in operation.
7) In urban centers the heat output from nuclear power stations should be used for district heating, dehumidification, water purification and desalination. The thermal energy should be delivered to customers via buried insulated water and/or steam pipes. At customer premises far from the nuclear power station the thermal energy can be upgraded using electric heat pumps.
8) The nuclear energy supply alternative requires transparency, political stability, public education, and a highly trained work force. Making nuclear power safe and sustainable requires enlightened government policies relating to: fast neutron nuclear reactor technology, reactor siting, district heating, natural draft dry cooling towers, nuclear fuel reprocessing, radioactive material transport and radio isotope storage.
9)Obtaining such enlightened government policies from legislators who lack any advanced science education is extremely difficult. The legislators respond to irrational demands of voters and special interest lobbies neither of which understand or care about the relevant technical issues. The North American education system has failed to teach the general pubic basic energy related physics and economics. Both the general public and elected representatives are unaware of advances in fast neutron reactors that, as compared to CANDU reactors, have improved uranium utilization 100 fold, have reduced long term spent fuel storage requirements by more than 1000 fold and have reduced required public safety exclusion zones to zero. Comment on this issue was recently provided by the popular and respected magazine Scientific American
10) Nuclear power is by far the safest form of electricity generation. However, part of the public has an irrational fear of nuclear energy. This fear is in part a result of failure by elected governments to properly address nuclear education, nuclear safety, nuclear fuel supply sustainability and sustainable disposal of nuclear waste.
11) Since the early 1980s at every opportunity the fossil fuel industry has acted to prevent loss of market share due to expansion of nuclear power. However, the blunt reality is that in most jurisdictions due to lack of economically accessible hydroelectric seasonal energy storage capacity there is no practical non-fossil alternative to nuclear power for base load electricity generation.
12) The on-going failure of elected governments to rationally choose nuclear power over power obtained by combustion of fossil hydrocarbons may ultimately lead to the extinction of large land animal life on planet Earth, including the human species.
13) In most jurisdictions fast neutron nuclear fission together with nuclear fuel recycling is the only technology that can sustainably, economically and safely supply sufficient power, when and where required, to completely displace fossil hydrocarbons.
14) Practical fusion based electricity generation requires a large supply of the fuel isotope He-3 which is rare on Earth but in the future might be mined from the surface of the moon. Practical fusion also requires sustained magnetic confinement of a 400 keV per particle random plasma, which is a major technological and economic challenge. Fusion reactions emit equipment damaging high energy (13.6 MeV) neutrons, that must be used to breed additonal fusion fuel. There is no realistic expectation of dependable and economic fusion power generation within the foreseeable future.
ELECTRICITY ISSUES:
1) Nuclear and renewable electricity are both more economic if each customer has behind-the-meter energy storage controlled to match the electricity load to the available non-fossil electricity generation.
2) Installation of behind-the-meter energy storage and displacement of fossil fuels by non-fossil electricity will not occur until the retail price of dependable electricity is made primarily proportional to the customer's monthly peak demand (kW or kVA) instead of being proportional to the customer's energy consumption (kWh). The delivery charge must also be made proportional to the customer's peak demand (kW or kVA). For consumers with load control the projected future dependable retail electricity rate for Ontario is:
[($30.00 / kW-month) + ($0.02 / kWh)]. A key enabling issue is that the marginal cost per electrical kWhe must be significantly less than the cost per kWht of the competing fossil fuel.
3) For a customer with a 50% load factor the corresponding blended dependable electricity rate per kWh is projected to be:
[($30.00 / kW-month X 1 kW-month) + 0.5 (730.5 kWh X $0.02 / kWh)] / [0.5 (730.5 kWh)]
= $0.1021 / kWh
4) In terms of both fossil fuel cost savings and reduced CO2 emissions it is more beneficial to displace liquid hydrocarbon fuels with surplus non-fossil electricity than to displace natural gas with surplus non-fossil electricity.
5) In order to effectively sell interruptible electricity a customer's monthly peak demand (kW) calculation must be disabled during metering intervals when interruptible electricity is available for that customer.
6) Timely full displacement of fossil fuels by non-fossil energy will likely require an almost immediate price on fossil carbon emissions of at least $200 / tonne of emitted CO2. The revenue from a fossil carbon emissions tax should be applied to construction of new nuclear power stations and supporting energy transmission.
SYNTHETIC FUELS:
Absent sufficient energy storage solar and wind power are only useful for fossil fuel displacement and electrolytic hydrogen production. These interruptible electricity applications will become financially viable when dependable electricity is primarily priced by peak capacity required (kWe or kVA) rather than by absorbed energy (kWhe).
NET RADIANT ENERGY ABSORPTION:
Planet Earth continuously absorbs a fraction of its incident solar radiation and continuously emits thermal infrared radiation. Over dry land the law of conservation of energy causes these two radiation fluxes to reach approximate balance within a few hours of a step change in atmospheric CO2 concentration. However, over the deep ocean these two radiation fluxes require centuries to reach balance following a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Over shorter periods of time the radiation flux difference causes an increase in ocean enthalpy (heat content).
Increasing ocean enthalpy causes increases in Earth surface temperature, humidity, atmospheric CO2 concentration, storms and sea level.
The rate at which Earth emits thermal infrared radiation outside the GHG absorption bands is set by the planetary emission temperature T, which is also known as the top of atmosphere temperature. It is effectively the temperature at the cloud tops.
In November 1996 Earth's average planetary emission temperature:
T = 270 degrees K
and emissivity:
Ft = 0.7555
were measured using a thermal infrared spectrometer mounted on an interplanetary spacecraft.
MULTIPLE STABLE TEMPERATURES:
Due to non-linearity in the radiant energy exchange equations Earth's planetary emission temperature T has several real stable solutions, a "cold" state corresponding to extensive glaciation, a "cool" state corresponding to presence of both north and south polar ice, a "warm" state corresponding to absence of north polar ice and a "hot" state corresponding to absence of south polar ice. The "cool" and "hot" stable solutions are separated by about 17.5 degrees C. The geologic record shows regular oscillations between the "cool" and "warm" states with occasional excursions into the "cold" and "hot" states.
Past transitions between these stable states occurred as a result of combinations of astrophysical phenomena that affect the solar irradiance and atmospheric phenomena that affect Earth's solar reflectivity (planetary Bond albedo) and thermal infrared emissivity.
In the "cool" state:
T ~ 270 degrees K
as measured by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft in November 1996.
In the "hot" state:
T ~ 287 degrees K.
as determined by astrophysical albedo measurements.
The local value of the emission temperature Tr at which cool state to warm state transition occurs is:
Tr ~ 273.15 degrees K
where 273.15 degrees K is the freezing point of water.
In recent decades products of combustion of fossil fuels have caused an increase in Earth's absorption of solar radiation and have reduced Earth's emission of thermal infrared radiation. As a result there is ongoing net heat absorption by the oceans which is melting floating polar ice and there is a gradual increase in Earth's dry land surface temperature and hence Earth's effective planetary emission temperature T. The rate of emission temperature rise is limited by the heat capacity of the oceans and the latent heat of fusion of the polar ice. Absorption of heat by dry land reduces snow and ice cover which further reduces solar reflectivity.
In early 2017 Earth was still in its "cool" state but a spontaneous transition from the "cool" state to the "warm" state had commenced. This spontaneous "cool" state to "warm" state transition is known as thermal runaway. The term "thermal runaway" is appropriate because it will soon be impossible to stop this temperature transition process.
THERMAL RUNAWAY:
The paramount challenge facing mankind is halting and reversing thermal runaway. If mankind fails in this objective Earth will likely spontaneously transition all the way to its "hot" state.
Thermal runaway is an extinction level threat to all large land animal species on Earth.
This web site addresses the physical origin of thermal runaway and the measures necessary to halt and possibly reverse thermal runaway.
The geophysical record shows that over the history of life on planet Earth there have been several transitions back and forth between the "hot" state and the "cold" state. Such past transitions are believed to have been triggered by relatively infrequent astrophysical phenomena such as the random nearby passage of another star. Each such transition was accompanied by a global land animal extinction.
REMEDIAL MEASURES:
The knee-jerk political reaction to global warming has been to attempt to partially displace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
In Ontario politically driven attempts to conserve electricity and implement solar and wind based electricity generation, without seasonal energy storage, achieved little net reduction in fossil CO2 emissions. Without sufficient seasonal energy storage wind and solar electricity generation cannot meet electricity system dependability requirements. In Ontario, due to geographic constraints, seasonal electrical energy storage is both prohibitively inefficient and prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, over commitment to wind and solar electricity generation without corresponding generator self excitation reduces the electricity grid stability and potentially threatens the electricity grid black start capability.
However, a major reduction in fossil CO2 emissions was achieved by replacing coal fired electricity generation with nuclear electricity generation.
The optimum energy supply mix depends on the availability and reliability of local sources of renewable energy, the availability and sufficiency of geography permitting economic local seasonal energy storage and on the political stability, public education and work force training required to support nuclear power.
The present retail electricity rate structure in Ontario and most other jurisdictions is primarily based on kWh consumed rather than on peak kW or peak kVA demand. This electricity rate structure does not reflect actual electricity system costs, prevents use of available non-fossil electricity for fossil fuel displacement and prevents construction and use of consumer owned energy storage. At the root of these problems is a faulty government policy of encouraging minimization of electrical kWhe consumption instead of encouraging minimization of electrical peak kWe demand at times of non-fossil electricity shortage and encouraging minimization of fossil fuel consumption.
An issue of paramount importance is adopting electricity rates that financially enable energy storage, load management and displacement of fossil fuels with surplus non-fossil electricity. These same electricity rates are required to enable investment in additional nuclear power capacity.
As a result of over a century of heavy dependence on fossil fuels, in most jurisdictions the electricity rate is primarily based on measured kWh consumed. However, that electricity rate encourages use of fossil fuels in preference to non-fossil electricity even when there are surplus non-fossil kWh available at zero marginal cost to the electricity system. In order for non-fossil electricity to economically displace fossil fuels the electricty rate must be primarily based on the peak kWe or peak kVA demand during times of electricity supply inadequacy during each billing period. A peak kWe or peak kVA based electricity rate, in addition to encouraging conservation of energy, financially encourages construction and appropriate use of consumer owned energy storage and enables substitution of electricity for fossil fuels when surplus non-fossil electrical energy is available. Measurements of kWhe consumed are still required for allocating surplus non-fossil electrical energy to parties with hybrid heating and energy storage systems that can usefully use intermittent electricity for fossil fuel displacement and for production of electrolytic hydrogen.
In order to enable displacement of fossil fuels with non-fossil electricity the cost of a marginal electrical kWh to the consumer must be less than the cost of a marginal fossil fuel thermal kWht. To meet this requirement the electricity system revenue must be primarily obtained from a charge proportional to each consumer's metered monthly peak kWe or peak kVA. The peak kWe or kVA meter should have a 2 hour exponential time constant (90% step response in 4.3 hours) and should be automatically disabled at times of non-fossil electricity surplus when interruptible electricity is being made available to that customer.
A new retail electricity rate rate of the form:
[($30.00 / peak kW-month) + ($0.02 / kWh)]
would allow economic use of surplus non-fossil electrical kWh for displacement of fossil fuels in Ontario while maintaining the required gross electricity rate revenue. This electricity rate would also encourage implementation of behind the meter energy storage.
Changing the electricity billing methodology involves transition issues relating to consumer education. Consumers must be taught that to reduce their electricity and fossil fuel costs they should invest in energy storage, load management and hybrid heating (fossil fuel displacement) equipment. That education process will take several years. It is recommended that to encourage consumer acceptance in the initial years adoption of the new electricity rate should be voluntary.
GOVERNMENTAL FAILURES:
Today, in spite of decades of overwhelming scientific evidence, most governments have failed to adopt the energy system changes required to prevent severe climate change. These governmental failures include:
1) Continued planning and construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure;
2) Failure to build sufficient non-fossil electricity generation, transmission and energy storage capacity to replace fossil fuels;
3) Failure to impose a price on fossil CO2 emissions sufficient to keep fossil carbon in the ground;
4) Failure to set aside and suitably zone river valleys that are potentially suitable for hydraulic energy storage;
5) Failure to set aside and suitably zone the land corridors needed for the high voltage electricity transmission lines, rail lines and district heating pipelines required for fossil fuel displacement;
6) Failure to set aside and suitably zone sites for the required nuclear electricity generating stations, nuclear district heating plants and commuter railway parking lots;
7) Failure to set aside and suitably zone depleted hard rock mines which have features which make them suitable for interim nuclear waste storage;
8) Failure to set aside and suitably zone natural salt cavern sites and depleted oil well sites suitable for compressed hydrogen gas storage.
9) Failure to adopt an electricity rate structure that financially rewards consumers for appropriate use of load management and energy storage;
10) Failure to adopt an electricity rate structure that enables economic use of intermittent surplus non-fossil electricity generation capacity for displacement of fossil fuels.
11) Failure to adopt site zoning, electricity system interface, thermal energy utility, sub-surface pipe right-of-way and building code legislation necessary to enable nuclear district heating/cooling in urban areas.
12) Failure to educate the public with respect to critical energy related matters including:
a) the law of conservation of energy;
b) thermal runaway;
c) the nature of electricity;
d) photon energy quantization;
e) sustainable non-fossil energy sources;
f) constraints on utility supplied power and energy;
g) long distance electricity transmission;
h) energy storage;
i) electricity rate structure;
j) nuclear energy;
k) fast neutron reactors;
l) nuclear fuel reprocessing;
m) nuclear waste disposal.
13) When legislators comprehend the scope of the work that must be done to prevent thermal runaway they often feel overwhelmed and do nothing. Legislative action is driven by public demand and most voters do not understand the basic physics of energy systems and climate change.
POLITICAL FAILURES:
In North America no major political party is facing the full scope of the required fossil carbon extraction reduction. Nowhere in North America is net new nuclear power capacity being built. In every case governmental corruption by the fossil fuel industry is driving wrong decisions. In the USA CO2 emissions are increasing due to irrational replacement of nuclear electricity generation capacity by natural gas fuelled electricity generation.
In Ontasrio there are firm pland to close the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in 2024 but there is no plan to replace its nuclear capacity.
The failure of elected governments to adopt advanced nuclear power technology is highly troubling. If present governmental behavior patterns continue much of the existing world population will die of starvation within the 21st century. This starvation will be triggered by agricultural failures due to drought and aquifer depletion at equatorial and middle latitudes. As Earth's average atmospheric temperature continues to rise so also will the sea level and soil moisture evaporation. Absent sufficient nuclear power for desalination of sea water and for pumping of desalinated water inland for crop irrigation, in many places there will not be enough fresh water in the dry season to support intensive agriculture.
Already there are substantial reductions in land suitable for agriculture in Australia, Africa and North America due to lack of irrigation water. At the time of writing over 5 million people in Somolia, Etheopia, South Sudan and neighboring equatorial regions are facing death due to drought induced starvation. Less well covered by the news media are ongoing droughts in parts of South America and southern Africa. In Capetown, South Africa the public water supply is on the brink of exhaustion.
In Ontario the successive governments have failed to adopt peak kVA based electricity rates to enable displacement of fossil fuel consumption by surplus non-fossil electricity. Instead governments have squandered electricity ratepayer funds on incenting electrical energy conservation that increases fossil fuel consumption.
In Ontario the improper retail electricity rate structure makes construction of behind the meter energy storage financially impossible and acts as a huge disincentive to further construction of reliable nuclear generation.
In Ontario CO2 and soot emissions are increasing due to increasing use of natural gas fueled electricity generation in place of non-fossil nuclear electricity generation.
In Ontario ratepayer funds have been squandered on wind and solar electricity generation, over 70% of which is discarded for lack of energy storage and for lack of a suitable retail electricity price structure.
Major reductions in fossil CO2 emissions can only be achieved by construction of additional nuclear power capacity. The fossil fuel industry funds multiple parties which lobby against construction of additional nuclear capacity. This problem is compounded by a voting public that lacks educatiuon in basic energy issues.
The 2017 Ontario Long Term Energy Plan does not address displacement of fossil fuels in the heating and transportation markets with nuclear heat and non-fossil electricity. The Ontario government has yet to face the reality that to completely displace fossil carbon the nuclear reactor capacity in Ontario must be increased at least 3 fold and most new nuclear reactors must be located in urban areas. For efficiency and economy small modular reactors must be sited to provide both district heating and district cooling augmentation via dehumidification.
Non-fossil energy requirements that are completely missing from the 2017 Ontario Long Term Energy Plan include energy: for biomass processing to make synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels, for additional cement and metal production to replace asphalt and for non-combustion municipal waste processing to recycle hydrocarbon resins.
In recent years in Ontario there has been a disproportionate investment in wind and solar electricity generation without sufficient investment in nuclear power, energy storage and electricity transmission. Over investment in intermittent renewable electricity generation without sufficient seasonal energy storage creates stranded assets having little market value.
There is no recognition that the cost per kWhe of transmitting intermittent wind and solar generated electrical energy from distant rural generation sites to urban load sites is about 12X the cost per kWhe of transmitting dependable nuclear electricity from relatively nearby nuclear generators to urban load sites.
As nuclear electricity generation displaces fossil fueled electricity generation the market value of intermittent renewable electricity generation will decrease unless there is sufficient seasonal energy storage. However, in Ontario there is almost no seasonal energy storage and little prospect of any new daily energy storage until the retail electricity rate structure is changed to be peak dependable power oriented rather than energy oriented. That rate change would financially enable production and storage of electrolytic hydrogen as a vehicle fuel.
As a result Ontario's blended electricity rates are extremely high and much of the non-fossil electricity generation capacity is discarded. This policy of discarding useful non-fossil energy has been concealed by improper electricity rates and by deceptive accounting by parties with vested interests and short term political and profit agendas. The ongoing cost of this scam to the Ontario rate payers and taxpayers is over $2 billion per year.
Ontario has been in the ridiculous position of exporting electricity at about $0.016 / kWh while charging Ontario rural consumers as much as $0.270 / kWh. This electricity pricing strategy has increased consumption of fossil fuels in Ontario and has made many Ontario businesses internationally uncompetitive. The Ontario government has repeatedly ignored engineering advice to allow consumers to voluntary change from the obsolete retail electicity rate primarily based on measured kWhe to a new retail electricity rate primarily based on measured peak kWe or peak kVA. The proposed new rate would reflect the true cost of electricity generation and transmission in Ontario and would allow Ontario consumers access to the intermittent surplus non-fossil electricity generation that is presently discarded or exported at an extremely low price.
[($30.00 /peak kW-month) + ($0.02 / kWh)]
would:
a) maintain the required electricity system gross revenue;
b) encourage implementation of behind the meter energy storage;
c) allow economic use of surplus non-fossil electrical kWhe for displacement of fossil fuels;
d) reduce the blended cost of electricity per kWhe by enabling larger kWhe consumptions without increasing the metered peak kWe demand;
e) Encourage load control which would minimize future electricity system costs.
Up until the present the government of Ontario has been unwilling to act rationally to displace fossil hydrocarbon fuels with available zero cost surplus non-fossil electricity, which would reduce the blended electricity cost per kWhe. The only explanation for this governmental inaction is deep seated corruption. The financial beneficiaries of this corruption are US bulk electricity purchasers and the Canadian fossil fuel industry.
FAST NEUTRON REACTORS (FNRs):
There is only one sustainable path for displacement of fossil fuels and that path requires widespread deployment of liquid sodium cooled fast neutron nuclear reactors for power generation. Hence, for expansion of nuclear power capacity to make economic and environmental sense, there must also be a major investment in conversion from water moderated nuclear reactors to liquid sodium cooled Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs).
A liquid sodium cooled Fast Neutron Reactor (FNR) heats a pool of primary liquid sodium comparable in size to an Olympic diving pool. Immersed in the center of this primary liquid sodium pool are fuel tubes which keep the primary liquid sodium surface temperature nearly constant at 450 degrees C. Immersed in the primary liquid sodium around the perimeter of the pool are metal heat exchange tubes which contain circulating secondary liquid sodium. The secondary liquid sodium removes heat from the primary liquid sodium and delivers that heat to steam generators for electricity generation and district heating. Since the primary liquid sodium temperature is constant the reactor thermal power output is set by the flow rate of the secondary liquid sodium and the temperature difference between the liquid sodium and the super heated water in the bottom of the steam generator. The variable flow FNR heat transfer systems provide four independent safety isolation barriers for radioactive species.
FNR SAFETY:
A practical FNR is an assembly of heat emitting active fuel bundles encircled by passive fuel bundles. In addition to the normal power control mechanism there are two independent emergency shutdown systems. Each active fuel bundle features:
1) Natural primary sodium circulation;
2) Passive shut down if the fuel bundle's discharge temperature exceeds its setpoint;
3) Independent discharge temperature setpoint control for each active fuel bundle.
Each FNR power plant has multiple independent intermediate heat removal systems. There is sufficient natural circulation in the intermediate heat removal systems to remove fission product decay heat when there is no sodium pump power.
Underneath the fuel tubes is a primary sodium pool bottom material that, in the event of fuel melting, will prevent formation of a critical mass on the bottom of the primary sodium pool.
Each FNR has a > 4 m thickness of blanket fuel and liquid sodium around the outside of the core fuel tubes that absorbs all leakage neutrons and hence extends equipment life and prevents production of decommissioning waste.
FNRs must be sited where they will never be exposed to flood water.
FNR POLITICS:
In 1994 former US president Bill Clinton, for reasons of corruption and political expediency, cancelled the highly successsful US fast neutron reactor development program. Due to lack of program funding the USA, which until that time was a world leader in FNR nuclear engineering matters, totally gave up its leadership role.
There has been a failure by all levels of North American government to recognize that in high latitude countries, such as Canada, the only technology that can sustainably displace fossil fuels is liquid sodium cooled fast neutron reactors (FNRs). The FNRs require substantial plutonium inventories so the US policy of intentional disposal of plutonium in thermal reactors must be changed.
There is also insufficient public recognition that advances in liquid sodium cooled fast neutron reactors and related technology have potentially enabled a large increase in nuclear plant life, an over 100 fold improvement in natural uranium utilization efficiency, an over 1000 fold reduction in the requirement for isolated long term storage of spent nuclear fuel and electricity grid load following by nuclear generation.
Due to repeated political procrastination with respect to fossil carbon taxes, electricity rates and new nuclear reactor development there is no certainty that atmospheric thermal runaway can be halted. Under the best of circumstances the time required to build the nuclear reactor capacity required for total fossil carbon displacement in the Ontario energy sector is at least 50 years. Absent prompt construction of this FNR capacity thermal runaway will become impossible to stop.
In summary, stopping thermal runaway requires:
a) Immediate halting of investment in new dedicated fossil fuel infrastructure such as oil wells and oil pipelines;
b) A fossil carbon emissions tax sufficient to keep fossil hydrocarbons in the ground;
c) Immediate construction of much more nuclear electricity generation and related electricity transmission capacity;
d) Siting new nuclear reactor capacity in urban population centers;
e) Widespread deployment of small modular liquid sodium cooled fast neutron reactors (FNRs) and nuclear fuel recycling;
f) Use of intermittent renewable energy when and where available for hydrogen production and displacement of fossil fuels;
g) Adoption of noninterruptible electricity rates primarily based on each consumer's monthly peak kW or peak kVA measured during metering intervals when interruptible electricity is not being supplied;
h) Widespread adoption of consumer owned behind-the-meter energy storage;
i) Large scale production of synthetic liquid hydrocarbon fuels for fueling aircraft;
j) Large scale production of anhydrous ammonia for fueling small and meduim size ships;
k) Wide spread adoption of lithium batteries and compressed electrolytic hydrogen for automotive and truck propulsion;
l) Widespread adoption of electricity and hydrogen for railway propulsion;
m) Repurposing of the natural gas piping system for hydrogen distribution;
n) Repurposing of existing natural gas storage caverns for storing hydrogen;
o) Development of toluene/methylcyclohexane facilities for rural distribution and storage of hydrogen;
p) Adoption of nuclear district heating and dehumidification in urban areas;
q) Widespread adoption of ground source and district energy source heat pumps for comfort heating and cooling.
NOTES TO READER:
Most of the material on this web site is suitable for persons with a high school science education. However, some of the material requires the reader to have a deeper understanding of mathematics, physics, chemistry or engineering.
The web page ENERGY AND SOCIETY gives an overview of some of the major issues that are more fully developed elsewhere on this web site.
Visitors to this web site should review the tables of contents that are accessible via links located at the top and bottom of each web page.
Web site visitors are encouraged to email constructive comments to the author.
A document worthy of careful study is a March 2016 report by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers titled: Ontario's Energy Dilemma: Reducing Emissions at an Affordable Cost.
Another document worthy of careful study is an April 2019 report by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers titled: Summary Report Retail Electricity Price Reform. There are related documents available on the web page titled: ELECTRICITY RATE PROPOSAL.
This web page last updated December 7, 2019.