Zark's

Does Yellowstone Bacteria Provide a Clue to Bio-Energy?

Bacterium named C. obsidiansis growing on crystalline cellulose
Image Credit: Jennifer Morrell-Falvey/ORNL

Generally, the idea of biofuels such as ethanol is to somehow break down starch crops into molecules that can be fermented into sugars.  As I have blogged in the past, the economic and ecological benefit of corn ethanol is increasingly questionable. 

But there is biomass that grows without expensive energy expenditures, but most of the biomass is trapped within cellulose instead of starch.  Sawgrass for example, can yield 540 percent of the energy used to harvest it and process it into ethanol.   The problem is that the enzymes that can break down the cellulose are costly.

(Recall that celluose is the structural component of the primary cell wall of green plants.) 

ORNL explores proteins in Yellowstone bacteria for biofuel inspiration tells that Oak Ridge scientists have discovered the bacterium naturally breaks down cellulose in hot springs.  Observation has revealed whenever the bacteria is upon sawgrass, it expresses a specific set of proteins tailored for breaking down the cellulose of that plant.  This has helped the researchers identify the proteins and enzymes important to break down plant cell walls. 

Although we are still years before we can dump in something like yeast into a batch of sawgrass and ferment it in a single step, the proteins and enzymes identified in this study, may someday be another piece of the nation's energy puzzle.

(And that by the way, is the message that Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu has articulate for Congress - All of the Above Energy Strategy.  The strategy is to do whatever it takes to exploit and harvest ALL the energy sources available to the nation.)

 

2012 Budget Woes Turn NASA Away from Mars

The Planet, Mars
Image Credit: NASA, ESA, the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA), J. Bell (Cornell University), and M. Wolff (Space Science Institute, Boulder)

Similar to the hard choices being made at all federal agencies for the President's Budget, NASA has dutifully reduced costs, but as a consequence is reducing missions.

All of the NASA budget presentations and handouts are available at their website, but it is difficult to understand what the agency is not going to do.

Obama's budget would cut Mars program, solar system exploration tells that the cuts will cost two joint missions to Mars with the European Space Agency (ESA).  The 2016 mission, Trace Gas Orbiter was planned to survey the Martian atmosphere.  The 2018 mission would have landed a rover to collect rocks and return the samples to Earth.

Aside from the austere federal budget in general, NASA has two problem children: The James Webb Space Telescope and the Space Launch System (SLS).  The new space telescope is substantially over budget, with continuing cost and schedule risks.  The new heavy lift rocket and crew vehicle were mandated by Congress rather than a strong ownership by NASA.

I apologize for the quality of the graphic below, but I predict it will generate another fight with Congress.  NASA continues to press for funding commercial space exploration, while Congress considers national space technology more relevant.  In 2012 through 2015, note all of the commercial launches of SpaceX and Orbital.  My guess is that Congress will tell NASA to focus on its own Space Launch System and let would-be commercial space operators fund their own way.

NASA Launch Schedule - from the FY12 Summary Budget Briefing

Mmm.  I believe NASA and the Department of Energy represent the big engineering and science projects that the national government should fund.  Although it overlaps with the Department of Transportation, I would like additional research and development on new aviation technology.  The U.S. is particularly dependent upon aviation for transportation, and we need 'to break glass' with advancements that are too risky for commercial companies.

 

 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves Two New U.S. Reactors

Plant Vogtle Construction, located near Waynesboro in eastern Georgia near the South Carolina border.
Image Credit: The Southern Company

NRC Concludes Hearing on Vogtle Nuclear Reactors, First-Ever Combined Licenses to be Issued tells the government agency has approved licensing for two new reactors at the Plant Vogtle facility.  They did impose a condition that requires inspection and testing of squib valves, which compose part of the new passive cooling system.

The plant had been granted a Limited Work Authorization, as evidenced by the photograph above,and NRC licensing engineers have been onsite for almost a year, performing inspections and collecting evidence for the licensing hearing. 

In the background of the photograph, you can see Plant Vogtle's two operating reactors, operating since May 1987 on Unit 1, and May 1989 on Unit 2.  Both reactors are 1,215 MW designs by Westinghouse, with General Electric turbines and generators.  It is a 3,200 acre site along the Savannah River.  The cooling towers, readily recognizable above, are 548 feet tall. 

The cost of the first two units was $8.9B, which explains why Plant Vogtle has the attention of electrical utility companies everywhere, with a projected cost of $14B.  The new Westinghouse reactor design, the AP1000 is intended to simplify construction and decrease costs, despite the sticker-shock of the new plants.  In addition, the AP1000 has a new passive cooling system that can operate without electricity in the event of an accident - an key consideration after Japan's Fukushima's accident on 11 March 2011.

Currently, the nation has 104 licensed power reactors - 69 are pressurized water reactors, and 25 boiling water reactors. 

(Plant Vogtle is named after the former CEO of the Southern Company, but Alvin Vogtle did not have a typical CEO background.  He was an aviator in World War II, captured as a POW and his escape attempts (several of them) were the inspiration of Steve McQueen's character in the Great Escape.  Vogtle was finally successful in escaping from Stalag Luft VII-A.)

 

New Coal Plants in the U.S.

Image Credit: National Energy Technology Laboratory

As I have blogged previously, the U.S. has 25 percent of the world's coal reserves.  Yet, a key executive of Peabody Energy claims, China's coal reserves 'will make it new Middle East'.  Fred Palmer tells that China is ahead of the the U.S. in clean coal technology.  As one example, China already converts significant quantities of coal into synthetic petroleum.

When old coal plants die, is it a bust or a blessing for Ohio? explains First Energy Corporation has announced plans to close six coal-fueled plants.  Most likely the decision was an aggregation of several factors.  First, the EPA has announced tougher environmental rules and second, the U.S. economy is dismal with no increased demand in electricity.  Third, the U.S. is (afloat? or buoyed?) with natural gas.  Low prices for natural gas are making it the preferred technology (other than wind) for new electrical plant construction as shown in the graphic below.

Image Credit: National Energy Technology Laboratory

Coal Versus Wind tells the average U.S. coal plant is about 500 MW and burns 1.4 million tons of coal per year.  There are about 600 coal-fueled plants in the nation producing 54 percent of the national electrical power. 

Interestingly, Japan may boost global coal markets, but not in the U.S. explains that Japan has decided to move away from nuclear power after the Fukushima accident and Japan's coal imports are necessarily increasing.  Yet, there is an over-supply of coal within the U.S. and many mines are shipping coal below cost.

 

Water Turbines to be Installed at Long Island Sound

Water Turbine
Image Credit: Verdant Power Systems

Turbines Off NYC East River Will Create Enough Energy to Power 9,500 Homes explains the Department of Energy is funding hydrokinetic technology as a future energy source.

Verdant Power Systems begun prototyping water turbines in the East River as early as 2002, and then began receiving funding from the DOE in 2008. The DOE tells this funding significantly improved the efficiency and reliability of the technology.

The idea of course, is to use tidal flow to power electric generators.  On January 23, 2012, Verdant received the first-ever commercial license for tidal power in the United States.  Their plan is to install 30 turbines in the river to provide power to the grid.  The turbines are bidirectional, so they produce power with ebb and flood tides and are anti-fouling.

A major advantage of hydrokinetic power is that they have little environmental impact.  They don't require dams or other civil works, providing revenue almost immediately upon installation.  For those that don't like to see wind turbines - these are underwater and invisible. 

 

Next Generation Reactor in Need of Funding

Temperature requirements of potential applications compared with LWR and HTGR operating temperatures. Image Credit: Department of Energy

Most commercial reactors in the U.S. are of the Light Water Reactor (LWR) configuration.  They use ordinary water as the primary coolant and moderator inside the reactor.  But as the diagram above illustrates, LWRs don't have the high temperatures needed for for some game-changing applications.  High Temperature Reactors (HTRs) could allow the U.S. to exploit its vast coal reserves to produce portable energy, so desperately needed for the existing transportation infrastructure.  The vast natural gas reserves could likewise be exploited to enable the hydrogen economy.

NGNP Project 2011 Status and Path Forward explains the Department of Energy has determined the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR) is the best path forward for very high temperature reactors and under the the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) have been developing technologies and strategies.  One thing is certain - much increased investment is necessary to ready the metals and ceramics capable of withstanding the heat and nuclear bombardment for 60 years.  To date, the U.S. government has invested $500M in the NGNP project.

The preliminary design calls for ceramic fuel, a graphite-based core, and helium coolant.  Mmm.  See Earth's helium reserves will run out in 25 years.  Helium was originally produced by the radioactive decay of rocks and the only way to artificially create it is through radioactive decay of tritium.

But back to the HTGR.  Its outlet temperature will be 950 degrees C, (1740 degrees Fahrenheit). 

 Note in the graphic on the left, that helium circulates inside the reactor's pressure vessel.

The Next Generation Reactor Plant project runs out of funding early this year.  Congress and the Department of Energy need to agree on the importance and priority of the next generation reactor.

 

Losing a Dream

Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR-11) at Argonne National Lab-West
Image Credit: Department of Energy

A breeder reactor is supposed to be as close to nirvana as we can achieve short of cold fusion.  The idea is that it can consume toxic nuclear waste, produce electricity, and also produce more nuclear fuel than it burns.

Japan losing hope for its pricey 'dream reactor' explains the nation has held that very vision for its next generation breeder reactor for almost four decades.  After an investment of over $13B, government officials are debating whether to kill the project.

The Washington Post article explains that America and Europe discontinued their experimentation with breeder reactors several years ago.  Today's technology requires liquid sodium as a coolant and western nuclear researchers decided the dangers of liquid sodium and nuclear were more than additive - it was an invitation to accident.  Japan however, has continued spending money on a smaller breeder reactor at Monju.  This reactor receives considerable criticism however, because it uses plutonium, considerably more dangerous than the uranium used by most commercial operators.

India's first fast breeder reactor to go critical early 2013 tells that energy-poor India is still betting on nuclear power.  It too, will be fueled with plutonium instead of uranium. 

Mmm.  There are many high-profile, big-science/engineering projects that are experiencing costly schedule delays.  These include the Japan breeder reactor, the Airbus A380, the Boeing Dreamliner, the Webb Space Telescope, and the next Blackberry phone.  (Okay, maybe not the last one.)  I wonder whether we expect too much, or whether the world has lost capability in engineering and science.

 

 

What to Do With Nuclear Waste?

Temporary Storage of Nuclear Waste
Image Credit: NRC

A lesson from last year's disaster at Fukushima was the need for safe long-term storage of nuclear storage.  The U.S. has been without a strategy since Yucca Mountain was shut down before it received a first shipment of nuclear waste.

President Obama appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) to recommend a national strategy.  The short story is that they are convinced long-term underground storage is safe and feasible.  They don't believe technology exists to neutralize the waste, but instead, it will be necessary to bury the truly high-radiation waste.

Most commercial power plants have fuel rods with 4 percent U-235.  Hard pellets of enriched U-235 are stacked in a fuel rod 12 to 14 feet long.  After four years of operation in a plant, the U-235 becomes spent and transuranics (such as plutonium) have been produced in the fuel rod.  When the fuel rod is removed, it is thermally and radioactively 'hot'.  So radioactively hot that a fatal dose occurs within minutes in the absence of protective shielding.  To cool and shield, the fuel assemblies are temporarily stored in a pool-like facility (similar to the graphic) for five years.  Then ideally it would be reprocessed. 

Unfortunately, the technology does not exist to completely remove and neutralize the transuranics.  Some reprocessing may be performed, but the solution today is to store it in a geologically stable repository.  For that, this nation and other nations need something like Yucca Mountain.

The problem however, is more complex than just a storage site.  It is also the transportation of the radioactively dangerous material.  WIth enough shipments, there will be an accident.  Our world is not perfect.

So the solution?  Honestly, we don't have a good one. 

 

 

How Healthy is the Gulf of Mexico?

Gas from the damaged Deepwater Horizon wellhead is burned by the drillship Discoverer Enterprise May 16, 2010.
U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Patrick Kelley.

During the oil spill, government and company officials persistently estimated the oil spillage at about 5,000 barrels a day. Scientists were asked to downplay Deepwater Horizon spill rates suggests that the flow rates were much higher - perhaps 70,000 barrels a day.  (The government estimate is now 62,000 barrels a day.)

Dauphin Island fish show up with lesions, BP spill link questioned tells that more than half of whiting caught caught in an expedition had bloody red lesions.  It is hard to pin the blame on oil spill, because disease is a common event for the Gulf's ecosystem.  However, there were tar balls along the stretch of beach where the fish were caught.

USF study finds more sick fish in oil spill area than rest of Gulf of Mexico tells that last summer, researchers observed more sick fish in the region of 2010's oil spill than elsewhere in the Gulf.  The University of South Florida scientists caution that even if the lesions are caused by oil, there are other wells and sources of leakage. 

Continued exposure to oil has multiple effects upon fish and crustaceans.  Dolphins have stranded on the northern beaches in large numbers, causing some scientists to wonder whether the oil spill damage their immune system.

 How Microbes Teamed to Clean the Gulf suggests that the massive oil plumes were devoured by hungry bacteria.  A study by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy believes a computer model of the Gulf explains how a perfect storm of bacteria devoured 4.6 million barrels of oil. 

Mmm.  Forgive me if I'm skeptical.  Scientists have tremendous difficulty in coaxing bacteria to eat oil in the laboratory.

DoE Pushing Small Modular Reactors

Small Modular Reactor
U.S. Department of Energy

Most of the nuclear power plants in the U.S. are 1000 MW or greater.  Because of the site preparations and protection, the current economy of scale sizes them at that size. 

The Department of Energy has been studying and now advocating power plants about 1/3 the size of today's nuclear facilities.  The idea is that today's technology enables small modular reactors (SMRs) that can be largely factory-fabricated and shipped to the facility's site by truck or rail.

At the site, the modules can be 'plumbed' together and quickly operational, compared to the decade-long construction of conventional plants.  The DoE is willing to share the development cost of two SMR designs, with the goal of having product in the field by 2022. (Draft Funding Oppportunity Announcment (FOA) responses are due February 17.)

The DoE believes the SMRs are sized to permit easy incorporation into the local power grids, in contrast to the large supply feeds required for conventional power plants.  (Think of the large towers crossing I-5 near San Onofre.)  The fast introduction into the grid permits much sooner return on investment for the utility companies and also allows them to construct facilities to meet increased demand.

As an example, utility companies could quickly provide additional electrical facilities for North Dakota's Bakken fields.  The craziness there continues to grow - McDonalds is offering $300 emploment bonuses since everyone wants to work in the gold oil fields.

Mmm.  I'm concerned about the plant security for lots of smaller facilities.  But I'm also in favor of reducing fossil fuel dependence.