Energywise iconEnergywise

APS Argues to Extend Lifespan of Nuclear Reactors to 80 Years

There are no technical barriers to running some nuclear plants for up to 80 years, according to a new report from the American Physical Society.

The study, which advocates keeping many of the approximately 100 reactors in the U.S. running for at least 60 years, argues that the tradeoff between nuclear and gas is not necessarily a bargain the country should be making.

Nuclear power provides about 100 gigawatts of power, about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity supply. If its contribution starts to wane after 2030 as reactors close, there could be an energy shortfall, according to the APS.

“Nuclear power plants provide the nation with a source of clean energy at a time when renewables such as solar and wind are not yet ready to fill the potential gap in the nation’s base power needs created by the loss of nuclear power,” Roy Schwitters, lead author of the APS report, said in a statement.

Some experts in the renewable industry would challenge the claims that solar and wind cannot provide a sizeable portion of the energy that would otherwise go missing after 2030. Energy efficiency could also play a role, as it did when the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was taken offline in 2012 after radioactive steam leaks were detected.

According to the Energy Information Administration, energy use per household is expected to decrease through 2040, but overall use is expected to grow in the same time period as more homes overall use air conditioning and electronic gadgets. Still, aggressive energy efficiency measures could temper those projections.

Renewables and efficiency aside, as coal and fission plants are retired they are largely being replaced by natural gas-fired power plants. The use of natural gas, especially in the place of coal, which is the largest portion of generation, is a trend that might be the cheapest way for the U.S. to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets through 2030, according to a NREL report.

The APS, however, argues that nuclear power continues to be a lower-emissions scenario than natural gas plants and that extending the lives of nuclear plants is “both complex and urgent.” Utilities also need clear government policy because they, by necessity, plan decades, not just years, in advance. The organization calls for more nuclear research—to raise understanding of how to maintain existing nuclear and build new ones, and to make clear just how long operating licenses can safely be renewed. Some nuclear experts argue that the United States should be leading the world in nuclear research, particularly in areas such as small nuclear reactors.

Opponents of nuclear power do not see it, advances notwithstanding, as the solution. "This is not a future technology. It’s an old technology, and it serves a useful purpose. But that purpose is running its course," Gregory Jaczko, who was chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, told IEEE Spectrum earlier this year.

The NRC has already issued extensions to many nuclear plants, raising their retirement age to 60 years, and is evaluating the possibility of some plants being open for 80 years. But it's unclear whether utilities will want to spend the money required to keep the assets up to date.

There are two research programs addressing the five main challenges to long-term operation: primary system metals and piping; concrete and containment structures; electrical cables; reactor pressure vessel and buried piping. “These programs have not uncovered any technical show-stoppers that would prevent the renewal of licenses from 60 to 80 years,” the study authors wrote, adding that more research is needed.

There are advances in monitoring aging nuclear plants, including techniques such as acoustic and ultrasonic monitoring, but the upgrades identified by the monitoring can cost up to $1 billion over a 40-to-60-year extension—money that some utilities might rather spend on new gas-fired plants instead of the controversial nuclear plants.

There is one more issue that could also hamper plans for new nuclear plants or for extending the lives of existing ones beyond 60 years: water. Nuclear plants are among the thirstiest options for electricity generation, and just this past summer, a heat wave threatened to shut down a nuclear power plant in Plymouth, Mass. because the amount of water taken from Cape Cod Bay had exceeded the limit set by the NRC.

 

Photo: Dominion Energy, APS

Toyota Licenses Wireless Charging Tech from WiTricity

You drive home in your electric car, enter your garage, and step out the car holding your briefcase in one hand and groceries in the other. Wouldn't it be nice if you could charge the car without physically plugging in?

Toyota thinks so. Wireless power startup WiTricity announced yesterday that Toyota has licensed inductive charging technology from the MIT spin-off and that the carmaker will build wireless power capture devices into future vehicles. Toyota invested in WiTricity two years ago.

The idea of wireless charging isn't new: GM’s ill-fated EV1 was charged using an inductive paddle. And although wireless charging for EVs or consumer electronics is far from commonplace, advances in the past decade show that the technology is maturing and that manufacturers are committed to building it into their products.

Earlier this year, Satoshi Ogiso—one of the engineers who headed development of the first Prius—said Toyota will begin verifying a wireless power charging system next year in the U.S., Europe, and Japan. Nissan, which makes the all-electric Leaf, is working on a wireless charging system and told reporters last year that it intends to offer it as an option in a 2015 model year Infiniti. Daimler and Volvo are also working on wireless charging and Bosch already sells a wireless charging system for the Leaf and Chevy Volt.

Read More

Top U.S. Companies, Following Government Lead, Are Pricing Carbon

The lead story in yesterday’s New York Times reported the somewhat startling news that “more than two dozen of the nation’s biggest corporations, including the five major oil companies, are planning their future growth on the expectation that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution as a way to control global warming.” The Times tended to focus on what it took to be the political implications of its news, and treated its discovery as further evidence of a growing split between the Republican Party’s business-oriented establishment, which tends to go with the flow, and its much more obstructive Tea Party base.

The Times report is weaker in elucidating the immediate implications of corporate carbon pricing for future business and technology. The one concrete example it provides of how carbon pricing affects long-term corporate planning is ExxonMobil’s getting into the U.S. natural gas business in a big way Because natural gas is somewhat less carbon-intense than oil (and of course much less than coal), in a future where the cost of carbon emissions is factored into fossil fuel prices gas will be even cheaper relative to oil than it otherwise would be.

But the implications of corporate carbon pricing are much broader than just that limited example might suggest: If the nation's biggest companies are betting that they will have to pay a price for emitting carbon in the not-too-distant future, that probably means that much of the investor community is increasingly operating on the same assumption. So, in turn developers of all low-carbon, zero-carbon, and energy conservation technologies—from wind and solar generation to green building techniques and demand-response software applications—should be getting a boost.

The Times might have mentioned that the U.S. government already sets a price on carbon. Corporate planners undoubtedly have an eye on the government's methodology and probably adopt schedules for estimated future carbon costs that are quite similar to the government’s. According to a fact sheet from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies, EPA and other Federal agencies such as the transportation department take what they call the “social cost of carbon” into account in various of their rule-making proceedings. Estimated future carbon costs are spelled out in schedules, which are used to calculate the benefits from, say, making cars more fuel-efficient or coal-fired power plants less polluting.

A “technical support document” issued last May by the U.S. government’s Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis -- Under Executive Order 12866, describes the conceptual framework and methodology in more detail.

Photo: David Parsons/Getty Images

Cars Could Become Flood Predictors

If you often feel that your morning commute in the car is wasted time, a new initiative out of Germany could transform your daily drive into a citizen science experiment that may help predict localized floods and droughts with more precision.

Researchers at the University of Hanover in Germany equipped cars with GPS and devices to measure rainfall, dubbing the vehicles RainCars. Although there are far more measurement variables to account for with a moving car than with a stationary rain gauge, the multitude of cars on the road could ultimately provide better accuracy at a hyper-local level. The research is published in the journal Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.

“If moving cars could be used to measure rainfall the network density could be improved dramatically,” project-leader Uwe Haberlandt said in a statement. Earlier research had shown that data from the wiper speed on many cars—which is an indication of rainfall rate—could provide better measurements of spatial precipitation than a handful of very accurate devices.

To build on earlier work, the researchers set up a lab experiment with a rain simulator and cars with different wiper systems. First, someone in the car manually adjusted the wipers based on visibility. “Front visibility is a good indicator for rainfall intensity,” Ehsan Rabiei, the paper’s lead author, said in a statement. However, human variability in choosing wiper speed isn’t the most reliable indicator of rainfall.

The next tests used newer vehicles that were equipped with two types of optical sensors that measure the rain accumulation and then automatically adjust the wiper action as needed. The sensors use a system of infrared laser beams to continuously detect the rain on the device and are therefore offer more accurate measurements than fickle human behavior.

 

Read More

Betting Long on EVs

Most of the recent news about electric and hybrid-electric vehicles has not been encouraging: three Tesla lithium-ion battery fires; sharply scaled-back projections for EV  sales on the part of the world's leading manufacturer, Renault-Nissan; the long-awaited Fisker bankruptcy filing, listing celebrity investors like Leonardo di Caprio and Don Cheadle, Marc Andreeson and John Doerr, Al Gore and the vice president's son Robert Hunter Biden.

It does not bode well for the EV's immediate prospects when some of the most prominent electric car enthusiasts in Hollywood, venture capital and politics get badly burned. Last month, the automotive industry's most enthusiastic proponent of electriics, Renault-Nissan's Carlos Ghosn, admitted to the Financial Times that the company's EV sales are running far behind projections. It might take Renault-Nissan until 2020-21 rather than 2016 to sell 1.5 million elecrtrics, he said.

To help put matters in perspective, GigaOm's Katie Fehrenbacher has reminded her readers that Tesla's current car has basically been a triumph and that the company has at least a fighting chance of coming out next with an affordable mainstream EV. "Tesla’s Model S has been a big success, and it’s part of a long term evolution that will allow Tesla to eventually deliver its third-generation, mainstream electric car,” wrote Fehrenbacher. "Finding success with that monumental project will be even more difficult than it was with the Model S, yet it will be even more of a revolutionary step toward moving the world off of gasoline-powered cars."

But what if Tesla does not beat the odds? What about the current lackluster sales of the Volt and Leaf?  Is it possible that the recent flurry of interest in EVs will turn out to be transitory and that, once again, we will see them drop off the radar screen? In the end, will the Leaf, Volt and Tesla suffer the same ignominious fate as General Motors's ill-starred EV-1?

Read More

Belgium Claims World’s Largest Offshore Wind Turbine

The largest offshore wind turbine on the planet is now spinning off of the coast of Belgium at the Belwind site. Alstom produced the 6-megawatt Haliade turbine and installed it off of the Ostend harbor last weekend.

The blades stretch out more than 73 meters and the turbine towers more than 100 meters above sea level. The turbine does not have a gearbox but instead uses a permanent-magnet generator. Fewer mechanical parts means less maintenance and higher reliability, according to Alstom.

The size and mechanical configuration will allow the turbine to produce about 15 percent more power than existing offshore turbines and can supply electricity to about 5000 households.

The Haliade 150 was initially tested at Le Carnet site in France. Alstom is now building factories to construct the six-megawatt turbines on a commercial scale.  

As Alstom claims the largest offshore wind turbine for the time being, the title of world’s largest offshore wind farm currently goes to the London Array off the coast of Kent. It boasts 630 megawatts and can power half a million homes.

Offshore wind farms may seem to be constantly vying for bigger and better, but some projects are seeing setbacks. One wind farm, whose turbines would have sat atop towers twice as tall as Alstom’s Haliade 150 and produced nearly twice as much energy as the London Array, has been shelved.

German energy giant RWE was planning the mega wind farm, the Atlantic Array, off the Bristol Channel in the United Kingdom. RWE Innogy’s director of offshore wind, in a press release Paul Cowling said the project is cancelled because of technological challenges and market conditions.

The latter may have been a larger factor, according to the BBC. Sources told the BBC said the project was having trouble getting financing. The project would have reportedly cost about £4 billion ($6.5 billion). There was also some environmental opposition since it would have sat just 13.5 kilometers from a nature reserve.

RWE said that the technical challenges included “substantially deeper water” than initially thought and adverse seabed conditions. With the Atlantic Array a no-go, RWE is focusing on completing the world’s second largest offshore wind farm: a 576-megawatt array known as Gwynt-Y-Mor off the northern coast of Wales.

 

UPDATE (December 2, 2013):

Alstom's Haliade 150 may hold the title of largest wind turbine, but that claim is likely short lived. There are various other 6-MW offshore turbines coming to market. “But at the moment our turbine installed at Belwind site is the biggest and the most efficient installed offshore, because of the size of its rotor,” says Stephanie Roux, spokesperson for Alstom Renewable Power. Most other offshore turbines of similar size are prototypes or not operating at full commercial capacity, according to Alstom. But a 7 MW offshore wind turbine is already being tested In Scotland.  

Photo: Alstom

Batteries Woven Right Into Fabric Boost Wearable Tech

The choices in wearable electronics, including Google Glass and a wave of smartwatches, are quickly multiplying. But those pesky batteries—they still need to be plugged into something to charge up. What if your watch strap could contain the battery components, along with a flexible solar cell? Voilà: No more plugging in.

Others have turned to piezoelectrics and nanomaterials to get wearable tech going, but a group at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology decided to work a lithium-ion battery right into the fabric.

"Although considerable progresses have been seen for wearable electronics, lithium rechargeable batteries, the power sources of the devices, do not keep pace with such progresses due to tenuous mechanical stabilities, causing them to remain as the limiting elements in the entire technology," wrote researchers led by Yong-Hee Lee in Nano Letters. To that end, they tested various materials which they enmeshed in the wristband.

They came up with a fabric-based battery comprising a nickel-coated polyester yarn as the current collector, polyurethane as a binder holding materials together, and a polyurethane separator. The resulting battery can withstand repeated folding and unfolding and still function, a requirement for any tech that's actually going to wrap around the wrist or be worn in other ways. The batteries exhibited "decent" cycling and rate performance, the researchers wrote. Just as importantly, they said, the methods for fabricating this type of battery already exist and should be scalable quickly.

To keep it charged, they added solar cells—flexible polymer cells (PCDTBT, specifically) on polyethylene naphthalate—to the same bits of fabric. The wristband solar panel achieved a conversion efficiency of 5.49 percent, not bad for flexible polymer cells of this type.

This is all pointing toward a future where your glasses, watch, shirt, and even the walls of your home are transformed by electronics. They'll be data nodes capable of medical monitoring, communications, or whatever else you can dream up. And they won't ever need to plug into a power source.

Will Balloons Boost the Solar Updraft Tower Idea?

For about seven years, a 195-meter-tall (640-foot) chimney rose above the plain in Manzanares, Spain, south of Madrid. The solar updraft tower, which had turbines at its base, rose from the middle of a 46 000-square-meter greenhouse-like collection area; it generated up to 50 kilowatts of power—that is, until it fell over.

The unfortunate end to the solar chimney is little more than a footnote. It failed due to supporting wires that weren't designed to resist corrosion, a fate that serves to punctuate the persistent failures of a technology touted for the last 110 years. The technology, first proposed in 1903, works by concentrating solar energy under a canopy near the ground, like a greenhouse. The resulting hot air is pulled upward into the tower, because hot air rises. Turbines at the base of the tower spin as the air rushes past, generating power. The taller the tower, the faster the updraft, and the more electricity one can produce.

Only a couple of examples of solar updraft towers have been built, including the Manzanares tower and one that is currently functioning in Jinshawan, China. In general, building towers tall enough to generate a lot of power was deemed risky and expensive. Now, as one company plans to build a truly massive tower in the Arizona desert, a dreamer famous for crossing the Pacific with Richard Branson wants to build a very different type of tower using his medium of choice: balloons.

Per Lindstrand, who has set a number of ballooning records with Branson, told UK magazine The Engineer that he was approached by the ALMA Observatory in Chile's Atacama Desert about devising a solution to the power needs of the remote site. The fine dust in the region makes solar panels a rough sell, so they have worked up plans for an inflatable updraft tower rather than a solid one.

The design is ambitious: a 130-megawatt-capacity unit comprising a one-kilometer-high tower skirted by a 14-kilometer-diameter canopy at its base. An engineer with Lindstrand's company said materials selection for the tower is still an open question. With a capacity factor of almost 25 percent, the tower would beat out solar panels and approximate wind power generation (updraft towers really need heat rather than actual sunlight, so they function even when it is cloudy). And perhaps most importantly, the balloon idea would cut the costs associated with building what would actually be the tallest manmade structure in the world if completed to design. Lindstrand said using concrete to build such a chimney would cost $750 million, while an inflatable tower could cost only $20 million. That seems a tad ambitious given mega-projects' costs in general, but it clearly would diminish materials costs to a great extent.

And speaking of ambitious, Australian company EnviroMission has even grander plans. The developer wants to build a 200-megawatt tower in Arizona involving 32 large (6.25-megawatt) turbines around the base. The company also has agreements in Texas for other tower projects; a concept design in Australia calls for a 1000-meter tower, though the Arizona project would likely be bigger.

Just because an idea hasn't worked before doesn't mean the concept isn't worth revisiting. But we won't anticipate the prospect of solar towers dotting the landscape until one manages to stay standing for a little while.

Arizona Imposes Net Metering Fee on Rooftop Solar

After a long battle pitting solar advocates against parts of the electric power industry, Arizona's electricity regulator has imposed a small fee on home operators of photovoltaic systems that rely on "net metering" to feed excess solar electricity back into the grid. Net metering has been controversial among utilities across the United States and in countries like the UK as well, because of claims that if customers generating electricity at home are allowed to sell electricity back into the grid at the going spot price of electricity, then the added system costs of providing the needed infrastructure will be shifted to all the rest of the customers.

The state's utility regulator, the Arizona Corporation Commission, concluded that concerns about the cost shift are real and imposed a fee of 70 cents per kilowatt of installed solar, which would equate to about $5 per month in a typical household. Though that is but a tenth of what the power industry had advocated, spending millions of dollars to lobby the Arizona regulators and influence public opinion, it may have some national impact. As Arizona is  the country's leading solar state (on a per capital basis), its regulatory thinking could be a bellwether. What is more, rules governing net metering are bound to become more important almost everywhere, as homes start feeding electricity into the grid not only from photovoltaic panels, but also other sources such as electric vehicle batteries, fuel cells, and wind turbines.

The net metering fee could also have some impact on an alternative option for residential PV, which goes by the name of "solar gardens." In this model, instead of purchasing a home installation with all the attendant complications--including, now, factoring in the net metering fee--customers buy a "plot" or lease its output in a cooperatively owned solar farm. Electricity generated on the plot monthly is subtracted from the customer's electricity consumption, and if production exceeds consumption, the customer is credited. An Arizona cooperative has been a pioneer in developing solar gardens, and the concept is catching on even in the northern Midwest.

Photo: Jenna Wagner/Getty Images

A Low-Water Energy Future Isn’t Necessarily Low-Carbon

Planning for a low-carbon energy future is not the same as planning for a low-water energy future, according to new research from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

There is a lack of Academic research that compares carbon emissions, water use, and cost, according to lead author Mort Webster, an associate professor of engineering systems at MIT. “When we started this work,” he said in a statement, “we assumed that the basic work had been done, and we were going to do something more sophisticated. But then we realized nobody had done the simple, dumb thing.”

Although there may be a dearth of academic research looking at the exact question Webster was asking, there has been plenty of other research and action that shows governments, utilities and environmental groups are increasingly examining the issue and developing policies that address water, energy and climate change simultaneously.

Three years ago, IEEE Spectrum reported extensively on the water-and-energy crisis. The coverage included models that engineers were developing to look at not just the nexus of water, energy, and carbon, but also air, soil and pollutants. The special issue also looked at how regions as diverse as, say, Australia, Singapore, and California are addressing climate, water, and energy issues.

Last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) [PDF] included the issue of water use related to energy production as its own section within UCS’s annual report for the first time. Another report from the International Energy Agency found that about 15 percent of the world’s total water withdrawal goes to energy production, and that figure could increase by about 20 percent between 2010 and 2035.

Webster’s research, which appeared in Nature Climate Change, found what others in the industry already know: limiting carbon dioxide emissions and water usage at the same time requires a different balance of technologies than does just doing one or the other.

Nuclear power, for example, is low on the carbon spectrum compared to coal, but uses a lot of water. Even some more energy-efficient fossil fuel power plants can significantly cut CO2 emissions, but use more water as a result. Hydropower is low-carbon, but requires a steady supply of water. Wind and solar photovoltaic are both relatively low-carbon and low-water energy technologies, but concentrating solar power plants use more water than new coal-fired power plants. The UCS report found that the increase in water withdrawal by the power industry would be driven by higher-efficiency power plants and expanding biofuels production.

Water concerns are not necessarily taking a backseat to meeting renewable energy portfolio standards and carbon reduction goals. Black & Veatch has found that power utilities identify water supply issues as a bigger concern than nuclear disposal or carbon regulation.

In the Western United States, some power producers are already planning for a low-water future while trying to keep hydropower as a part of the energy mix. For the first time, India, which has growing power needs and water constraints, has identified water as a scarce natural resource in its most recent five-year plan.

But there is a way forward that can take both carbon and water into account. Energy efficiency throughout the entire power sector, from production, to delivery, to end-use, is one way to curb both water and carbon emissions.

As wind and solar PV come down in price, the renewables are also becoming more cost competitive and could displace some of the older, most water- and energy-intensive fossil fuel plants.

Photo: iStockphoto

 

Most Commented Posts

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for the EnergyWise newsletter and get biweekly news on the power & energy industry, green technology, and conservation delivered directly to your inbox.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Load More