We need low cost, walk-away safe, distributed nuclear base load. Molten salt reactors are the energy future. The nation that figures this out first (China?) is going to get a huge advantage.

Smart grids with integrated storage and long-range transmission of renewable power is a very expensive way to go. Developing economies will build coal plants instead. We need a low-cost nuclear power option.

See: http://www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/

Nick,

I agree LFTRs are a good idea, China and India are working with thorium, Norway and Russia are too. We had programs until Congress pulled the funding many years ago.

Also, what about using heat as a storage medium?

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/235747/generate-solar-power-night.html

http://inhabitat.com/solar-panels-work-at-night/

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/12/apple-to-harness-stored-wind-energy-via-new-on-demand-system.html

http://www.highview-power.com/wordpress/?page_id=1320

http://www.energystoragenews.com/Highview%20Power%20to%20build%20cryogenic%20energy%20storage%20plants%20which%20use%20liquid%20air%20as%20the%20energy%20storage%20medium.htm

Why do we even pay attention to Exxon funded research? It's got a "Big Oil Approved" stamp on it.

In terms of electrical energy required per nominal kWh of battery storage, the ESOI of li-ion batteries would be about 40 for the life time electrical energy out to electrical energy in. The life time electrical energy out to the total energy in is about 12 as the article states but only if all the energy comes from fuel - 75% to generate electricity and 25% for fuel for mining operations.

This distinction should have been made in the article.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es702178s/suppl_file/es702178s-file004.pdf

I would be more interested in an article on how much energy storage, electrical, thermal, etc., will we need.

ai vin provided many excellent additional reference non-battery storage options.

Two US Molten Salt Reactors were run and NEVER expanded, but left to die - which may say enough.

There are plenty of ways to provide light water emergency reactor cooling water pressure remotely, but arrogant nuclear people have failed to do this for fifty years and are out of second chances.

@KitP; I was referring to the CMU life cycle analysis only for the energy, ~ 470 kWh per kWh, required to manufacture a Li-ion battery and the source of this energy.

Yes, the LCA for GHGs is also quite good and it could bring some sanity to GHG discussions.

@NorthernPiker

Thank you for the clarification. The three most important attributes of a LCA are location, location, location. BEV may be a good idea in France or South Korea but not where I live.

For renewable energy and nukes extending the life of a project reduces both the environmental impact and the cost per kwh.

“If decommissioning/radioactive waste correcting costs are included - nuclear becomes the most expensive electric power, ”

In the US those cost have always been included. For the last ten years the cost of making power with nukes is less than with coal. I did mention location. It is unlikely that a new nuke could beat a new coal plant sitting on strip mine in the Powder River Basin. However, when you ship the coal from Wyoming to Georgia, new nukes are cheaper.

China started building nukes when they could no longer produce enough coal with slave labor coal. A new nuke plant is cheaper in China when they are buying the coal from West Virginia.

“There are plenty of ways to provide light water emergency reactor cooling water pressure remotely, but arrogant nuclear people have failed to do this for fifty years and are out of second chances. ”

US LWRs have not failed to provide cooling during a normal shutdown or during an abnormal occurrence such a loss of offsite power. At TMI, the safety systems worked normally but operators turned them off allowing a gas bubble to displace cooling water.

“walk-away safe ”

Safety is about not hurting people. Core damage is nothing more than equipment damage. The key is to provide enough time for people to walk away. If an earthquake occurs, you want the school your children are in to not fall down around them. If the building must be torn down afterward, it is just money.

Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS - see 10CFR50 for definitions) for LWR are a combination of active and passive systems. With an extended loss of AC power, the earliest we could expect to see core damage is 4 hours. The reactor with a passive system in Japan failed first. One system that uses a steam turbine driven pump ran for 53 hours days after it was designed to run. After the core is damaged, then the fission products have to escape the containment. Again this takes time.

The result is that there is plenty of time to walk away. The interesting thing about irrational fear is that if you tell people radiation is coming they will evacuate. Tell them a wall of water of unpredictable size is coming and they get out the video camera to document the moments before their deaths.

Game changer: Which energy/transport technology leads to least waste? Answer: Plug-in Hybrid vehicles by which households gain the choice to use stored electricity for driving or for household uses; the means to more closely monitor all energy consumption; an economic incentive to drive less, walk, bike and use mass transit more and support local economic development. A modest PHEV battery pack is a better match with a likewise modest rooftop photovoltiac solar array, a lifesaving portable power supply in an emergency, and the advantage of using any available fuel to recharge the battery in a grid failure.
Bottom Line: Plug-in Hybrid technology offers the most benefits and advantages to curb GHG.

Why no consideration of flywheel systems? It's already in use as grid storage.

"Stanford has very good wind resources but we never see a wind farm near this elite university."

I grew up on Stanford campus. I don't recall it being a very windy place, except for winter storms.

As Kit mentions in his first post biomass is one way to store renewable energy so I asked myself 'what's the potential?'

Let's take one thing that is produced yearly, like straw because I've already done some research into straw bale houses, and see what we get. About 140 million tons (128 million tonnes) of straw are produced each year in North America (from 1980's & 90's statistics for wheat, rice, oats, rye and barley crops). In many areas straw is still burned in fields, producing significant air pollution. [In California more than 1 million tons of rice straw were burned each fall in the early 1990s, generating an estimated 56,000 tons (51,000 tonnes) of carbon monoxide annually — twice that produced from all of the state’s power plants!] Straw can be compressed for transport: Straw pellets have a bulk density of >600kg/m3 & straw briquettes are ~1000kg/m3 and it has an energy density of 4.4kwh/kg.

128,000,000,000kg X 4.4kwh = 563,200,000,000kwh of stored energy each year just from straw.

“I grew up on Stanford campus. ”

Check a reference on wind resources. Of course the SF Bay area is not known for hang gliding, windsurfing, or sailing.

“In California more than 1 million tons of rice straw were burned each fall in the early 1990s ”

Here is a link for those who like pictures. http://www.industcards.com/biomass-usa-ca.htm

“Wadham 30 MW
Operation: 1989
Fuel: rice hulls, rice straw
This is the world's largest power plant of its kind and burns up to 600 tpd of rice hulls and rice straw.”

Many waste wood/biomass power plants were built to solve a environmental issues.