[Gasification] Nuclear and Biomass Electric Generation

Tue May 1 04:35:51 CDT 2007

2006 US nuclear net generation capacity 104 plants 97,400 MW. 2006 Reported
net generation 787 billion kWh. Capacity factor 89.9%. 19.4% of total US net
generation.
EIA Table 8.1 Monthly Energy Review
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

US 2006 biomass electric generation 28.5 billion kWh (Total renewables 34.9)
EIA Energy Outlook 2007  Table  16.  Renewable Energy Generating Capacity
and Generation
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html

Worldwide biomass net electric gasification capacity (including Manitoba) 10
MW? Capacity factor 30%? Net generation 26 million kWh?

We have some work to do. 

Tom Miles

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Greg Manning
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 9:03 PM
To: Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 10, Issue 61

 Greetings Jonathan and list:

 Jonathan, can I point out one simple fact ?

 you quote 80% of France, and 20% of the U.S.   The French have a VERY
different life style than the US, so, to put your statement "into scope" the
electrical capacity of France that is Nuclear driven is 4Gw, and the
electrical capacity of the U.S. that is nuclear driven is 4Gw. this is a
much more realistic statement of nuclear power that runs electricity
generation....

 I live in the Canadian Province that supplies the largest single source of
electrical power in North America, and we are only in the 6 or 7 Gw
range.... (and of this 5-6 Gw is exported out of our province..... most of
that to the U.S.).

Greg Manning,
Manitoba, Canada

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org]On Behalf Of Jonathan F.
Pratt
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:51 PM
To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
Subject: Re: [Gasification] Gasification Digest, Vol 10, Issue 61

Max,

The issues of nuclear 'waste' are overblown, and with the exception of
Chernobyl operated improperly by a reactor without the same containment
features of US and other current reactors have an excellent safety record.
Furthermore this so called 'nuclear waste' can be reprocessed into 20 times
more fuel after removing the 5% spent fissible components.  Granted, current
plants were very expensive to build but once operational I believe are very
economic for the amount of ongoing fuel costs required to run.  Next
generation pebble bed reactors (even safer) are coming into operation in the
next couple of years and can be scaled down economically to something like
as low as 10 MW.

How can nuclear seriously be looked at as uneconomic when it provides 80% of
electrical production in France and 20% in the US?  Has France bankrupted
itself to build and operate its power plants?  Hardly.  Then factor in the
20x factor for recycling and elimination of the 'waste' issues and one
cannot ignore nuclear as a viable and needed alternative as fossils are
depleted over the next 100 years.  Yes, wind and solar and biomass all have
their place and contributions to make but nothing beats nuclear for steady
high output base generation.

If we want to cut our dependence on fossils in any serious way we need to
make a large scale switch to plug in hybrid vehicles charged with nuclear
energy.

But this of course is all off-topic to this list, unless we touch on the
potential to use nuclear generated heat to drive gasification and FT synfuel
production processes.

I guess we cannot implement reasonable workable solutions to growing global
energy needs in the current environment that has zero tolerance for risk and
so dooms us to much greater risk of economic instability and collapse in the
future due to inaction.

But then again we can always opt for energy scarcity and 'mass die-off'  I
however opt for innovation and have an inherent belief that we can overcome
challenges which we are confronted with in energy and other endeavors.

We should be viewing all of our energy options as being "on the table".

>
> Jonathan
>
> I rarely reply to these ramblings however nuclear is not really a viable
> answer.  All that needs asking is can we store the waste in your living
> room (back yard?). This doesn't even begin to address the tremendous
> energy to build the plant, extract the fuel, refine it, rehabilitate the
> extraction environment etc.  The final thing I will mention is the
> clean-up in the case of the inevitable chernoble or a 3 mile island and
> the devastating human cost from the fallout.  Humans make mistakes so
> presuming "our" system won't have accidents, leak toxins etc is
> unrealistic.  Look at the cost of 1 plant and translate that into purchase
> of solar, either cells or solar thermal, with the effects of scale
> economies and you get a lot cleaner energy!
>
> Max Kennedy
>
>

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/781 - Release Date: 4/30/2007
9:14 AM

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/781 - Release Date: 4/30/2007
9:14 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/781 - Release Date: 4/30/2007
9:14 AM

_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org