Filed under: Ethanol
Nuclear-fueled ethanol will cost only $1 a gallon to produce
We often discuss differences between cellulosic vs. corn ethanol, but when was the last time we thought about nuclear ethanol? Specifically, this is ethanol made in a plant that uses excess heat from a commercial nuclear power plant for distillation. Using the leftover heat means "virtually no energy component" to the ethanol production cost, and therefore the end result is an ethanol per-gallon price of under one dollar.
This set-up is the hope of Alternate Energy Holdings (AEHI), which is proposing a Idaho Energy Complex that will operate as described above. AEHI says that, compared to an average cost of about $2 per gallon for other ethanol-production techniques and the 51-cent per gallon federal tax credit, and you've got yourself a doozy of a double duty energy plant.
If AEHI thinks that those people who aren't enamored with the current state of ethanol in America won't have a problem with combining ethanol with nuclear energy, they should think again. While there's certainly nothing wrong with capturing a source of energy (the excess heat) and making it useful, I can't imaging a less popular form of "green" energy than nuclear ethanol.
[Source: Alternate Energy Holdings]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dylan MacDonald 7:12PM (5/18/2007)
Talk about lipstick on a pig. Nuclear energy is a bad idea for many reasons, the most important being disposal. I have yet to hear any credible solution to this problem - and no, burying it in Yucca Mountain or anywhere else is not credible.
Nuclear power is the favorite energy "solution" of oilmen because it is the most likely to maintain the status quo. Giant companies with massive capitalization budgets are the only ones who can play, while huge government subsidies and regulatory corruption ensure that there will always be plenty of money sloshing around - even if the biz itself produces no profits.
Reply
PeakVT 7:28PM (5/18/2007)
And the feedstock for all this ethanol will come from? 'Waste' heat from nuclear plants (or any fossil fuel powerplant for that matter) may lower the cost of converting the fermentable material to ethanol, but there still needs to be something to convert. This plan only addresses half of the problem.
Reply
Sebastian Blanco 8:31PM (5/18/2007)
PeakVT -
AEHI says that "Sugar beets and potatoes, common Idaho crops, are effective feedstock for ethanol and will further minimize production overhead, while providing a market for the local agricultural community."
Reply
jcwinnie 9:32PM (5/18/2007)
Booze, what more do you need as a reason for more nuclear? Idaho college students can be the first to have nuclear beet parties and quaff concoctions like the Idaho Chug Noble.
Reply
PeakVT 9:43PM (5/18/2007)
"Sugar beets and potatoes"
Stuff people eat, in other words. And lots and lots of it. Just like ethanol in the Midwest, where corn is the feedstock.
Like I said, the feedstock for all this ethanol will come from? Ok, so maybe enough feedstock for this specific plant can be found without disrupting the food supply too much - there's a lot of wasted potato peelings in Idaho. But as a general solution to keep America and the world driving private transportation to highly dispersed destinations, ethanol just isn't it.
Reply
Tony Belding 10:37PM (5/18/2007)
I don't have any problem with nuclear ethanol -- but then, I've been in favor of nuclear power for a long time. (And to Dylan: nuclear waste disposal is a political problem, not a technical one. When there's political will to solve it, that's when it will be solved.)
If IEC polywell fusion reactors work (and the available data indicates that they should work), then there'll be no nuclear waste problem. In his Google Talk presentation Dr. Bussard described how IEC reactors could be used to power the processing of ethanol.
Reply
George Krpan 10:54PM (5/18/2007)
We will most certainly destroy the Earth if we keep burning ANYTHING whether it be fossil fuels or biofuels.
You might not think our odds for survival are very good with nuclear but slim is better than none.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 12:32AM (5/19/2007)
I'm old enough to remember when the purveyors of nuclear power promised energy "too cheap to meter". It wasn't true then; it isn't true now.
Even if nuclear power could be used to reduce the cost of ethanol production to $1/gallon, using a straight EV would still be substantially cheaper and less polluting. Ethanol is a mediocre fuel, regardless of how it is produced.
Reply
simon 4:58AM (5/19/2007)
In Australia the only condition used to sell uranium to China or India was that both governments had to promise not to build bombs with Australian Uranium.
As India and China are already nuclear powers the new supplies of Australian uranium just gave both of the Asian nations the opportunity to make more bombs from their existing supplies.
Unfortunately no alternative fuel will ever reduce or replace fossil fuel use. Even if the west reduces its use, developing nations will buy and burn the surplus.
Coal can also be an alternative it can be liquefied into a petrol substitute, as it was in South Africa, what a wonderful alternative that was.
Alternative fuels have been around for centuries, charcoal became an alternative to wood and coal replaced charcoal and then mineral oil became a replacement for olive or whale oil first for lubrication and then as fuel to replace biodiesel in the 1800’s.
Out of the list whale oil is the only resource we no longer use, after centuries we still burn wood, so please do not think that alternatives are the solution. The ethanol alternatives represent s just another combustible.
Food crops used for fuel will end the surplus yields that third world nation benefit from in famine relief. The fuel crops will also prevent nations from storing emergency supplies and the emerging markets will cause famines as third world nations exploit the new cash crop. Deforestation will also increase as a result of a need to clear more fuel crop land.
Already fertilizer cost have had to increase to cope with new demand and prices for sugar, maize and vegetable oils have indicated that food prices will beat us to the supermarket before our cars are driven by the new fuels.
Just because industry wants us to buy alternative fuel does not mean that the changes will benefit the environment. It is safer to assume that industry and governments see a profit in the green wash and people are easily led
Reply
small-wee-wee 8:45AM (5/19/2007)
Like other have said, whhat about disposal. So while cost at the pump might be a buck, that is in now way the TRUE COST of the fuel.
Reply
Henry 9:43AM (5/19/2007)
Depleted uranium is still considered safe and is affecting our current and unborn Americans.
http://wake-up-america.net/depleted_uranium.htm
It is already very cheap were we to make more it would be thrown in your rivers and streams.
Nuclear powerplants are horrible terrorist targets.
Reply
Chase 4:50PM (5/19/2007)
Sounds extremely speculative to me. Nuclear is certainly an effective way to produce energy on a large. People have a lot of issues about nuclear waste and the dangers of an accident are definatly significant. If the waste issue could be figured out I think it would be the best method of producing power. Even today it's much better than coal power with the way coal pollutes and puts mercury in the water.
snowmobiles
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 6:00PM (5/19/2007)
- Have to agree with #10.
I LOVE Nuclear, but, still there's no answer to nuclear waste. All in All, GE should get into Solar and Wind on a Gigantic scale, the US should switch to an electric car program. Then there's no huge unsolvable problems with nuclear waste.
Reply
Lucien Takar 1:02PM (5/20/2007)
To: All opposed to Nuclear Power.
Get your head out of your asses! Nuclear power is a perfectly viable way to produce energy and it SHOULD be used. It is a clean alternative to what we have now; Coal. Coal power plants produce thousands of pounds of CO2 and other deadly chemicals that spew into the atmosphere speeding up global warming, causing acid rain, and numerous other environmentally damaging products. And theres the danger of mining in a coal mine. Black lung anyone? Nuclear power is far more "green" than what we gain most of our power from now.
"Nuclear generated electricity avoids almost 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year in the U.S."
"In the U.S. Acid Rain program, 21 states showed between 1990-95 a 16.4 percent increase of nuclear generation that avoided 480,000 tons of sulfur dioxide."
Nuclear waste is far better to deal with than global warming and acid rain. Yucca mountain is a sound way to deal with the problem of nuclear waste. It would be buries in a remote desert away from human civilization deep underground in rock. Its also contained in leak proof containers. And until we find a better way to deal with the waste, its perfectly safe.
And to NOT build Nuclear power plants because of terrorist attacks is the most idiotic reason! How about we not build skyscrapers or cars or even cities?! Aren't they all subject to terrorist attacks? Or better yet, why don't we stop breeding because our children might grow up to be terrorists. That will surely stop the problem.
And to use Chernobyl as a reason to not produce nuclear power is just as flawed as any other reason. Chernobyl was a joke because of poor design and bad safety standards. Not making nuclear power plants because of that is like not making cars because of the Ford Pinto. Technology and cars have come a long way when it comes to safety and standards. The same can be said for Nuclear technology as well. Right now we have over 100 operational nuclear power plants in the US and they have been operating for decades. How many times have you heard them on the news about Meltdowns?! Oh yeah... there was that one. The Mile Island. And using that excuse is a joke as well. There was an unknown quantity to radiation released in the environment. Unknown could be none or a massive amount right?! Well locals reported no injuries and no deaths from said nuclear "catastrophe".
And everyone bashing nuclear power needs to do their research before they condemn it. With only 400 more nuclear power plants, we could supply electricity to the whole US and completely do away with that disgusting alternative we have now; coal.
Reply
Murc 1:48PM (5/20/2007)
I'm fine with it...if I can fill my tank with 1.50 for a gallon of gas...hell yeah.
I have no problem with nuclear, I like it, I'm surprised the tree-hugger crowd hates it so much...since they believe that its humans warming the planet by their awful greenhouse gasses....and nuclear produces Zero green house gasses.
I read a article a few months ago about a (concept or prototype...I forget which), that it could still get power out of the nuclear waste...which is pretty cool. But personally, I dont see why we dont just store all of the US's waste in a section of Area-51...that base is huge, and already has a shit-ton of security. and we can store it their until we find a way to use it, or dispose of it.
Reply
MikeW 1:57PM (5/20/2007)
1:02:40
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606&q=google+fusion&hl=en
Cheap desalination plants look good.
If the embargo is over, does that mean the DOD has a working one?
Reply
david 2:55PM (5/20/2007)
Anti nuclear view points are outdated and usually wrong, While there are issues with dealing with waste products, next gen reactors pretty much take care of that problem. When looking at the overall resources that nuclear power requires, nuclear power comes out ahead of all the rest, even wind.
Reply
Tormod Henne 6:00AM (5/21/2007)
Destilling ethanol is only one (bad) way of utilizing waste heat. Just about any power plant fuelled with nuclear or fossil fuels have waste heat that can be used for some purpose. Modern design gas generators acheive around 60% efficiency in generating electricity by utilizing waste heat power, in fact they are getting more power from the hot fumes than from the gas turbine driveshaft. Adding co-generation (using residual waste heat for simple heating purposes) brings total efficiency to the nineties. I thing it is a better solution to generate more electricity with the waste heat, using steam generators where possible, or stirling engines for lower temperatures. If we can deplete some of the usage of fossil fuels in el-generation this way, it will be more efficient than to take ethanol products to the roads
Reply
Peter Hansen 1:19PM (5/21/2007)
Why would anyone be against the capturing of waste heat for useful, practical purposes? If it can be made to work economically, I'd say it's a positive development. We're making a substantial investment in an ethanol infrastructure. Given that fact, it's counter-productive to be against a technology that reduces overall energy consumption in its production simply because the process gets its energy from nuclear power plants. To me it sounds like an elegant solution.
And I'm glad that another poster brought up the next-gen nuclear plant designs. These plants coupled with spent fuel reprocessing actually offer the chance to consume much of the existing nuclear waste. To me, it's environmentally irresponsible to oppose both the opening of the Yucca Mountain facility and the adoption of fuel reprocessing. You can't have it both ways. We either burn the waste for energy leaving behind radionucleotides with much shorter half-lives or we store said wastes in the most secure facility we have. It may be morally satisfying to oppose any action on this issue, but it's dangerous and wrong.
Finally, there is no single solution to the energy and environmental crises we face. It's going to take open minds to examine each possible part of the solution on its actual merits. This sounds like one such candidate for consideration.
Reply
Don 5:02PM (5/21/2007)
Dylan, where else would you like it to be buried? Your backyard? Yucca Mountain is the only sensible place for this stuff. It's a 1,000 feet down in the middle of the desert with no run-off water.
Reply