America Will Convert Land from Its Nuclear Weapons Program into Clean Energy Projects (energy.gov) 77
Friday America's Department of Energy announced plans to re-purpose some of the land it owns — "portions of which were previously used in the nation's nuclear weapons program" — for generating clean energy. They'll be leasing them out for "utility-scale clean energy projects" in an initiative called "Cleanup to Clean Energy."
The agency has identified 70,000 acres for potential development, in New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington: "We are going to transform the lands we have used over decades for nuclear security and environmental remediation by working closely with tribes and local communities together with partners in the private sector to build some of the largest clean energy projects in the world," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. "Through the Cleanup to Clean Energy initiative, the Department of Energy will leverage areas that were previously used to protect our national security and will repurpose them to the same end — this time, generating clean energy that will help save the planet and protect our energy independence."
The announcement notes that in December 2021, President Biden directed U.S. federal agencies to "authorize use of their real property assets, including land for the development of new clean electricity generation and storage through leases, grants, permits, or other mechanisms."
"As the leading Federal agency on clean energy research and development, DOE has both a unique opportunity and a clear responsibility to lead by example and identify creative solutions to achieve the President's mandate."
The agency has identified 70,000 acres for potential development, in New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington: "We are going to transform the lands we have used over decades for nuclear security and environmental remediation by working closely with tribes and local communities together with partners in the private sector to build some of the largest clean energy projects in the world," said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. "Through the Cleanup to Clean Energy initiative, the Department of Energy will leverage areas that were previously used to protect our national security and will repurpose them to the same end — this time, generating clean energy that will help save the planet and protect our energy independence."
The announcement notes that in December 2021, President Biden directed U.S. federal agencies to "authorize use of their real property assets, including land for the development of new clean electricity generation and storage through leases, grants, permits, or other mechanisms."
"As the leading Federal agency on clean energy research and development, DOE has both a unique opportunity and a clear responsibility to lead by example and identify creative solutions to achieve the President's mandate."
Sure Joe, sure... (Score:1, Funny)
Sure Joe, sure...
With Samuel Otis Brinton (aka Sam Brinton) in charge on your project, what could possibly go wrong? What a bunch of bozos!
Depends on the colonialist international date line (Score:2)
yeap! and his Wikipedia page says he was born in 1986/1987! He/she is a clown, just like Joe.
Well his birth person with a uterus obviously had him on Dec31/Jan1 of the white supremacist/patriarchy calendar. So it depends on where you are relative to the colonialist international date line whether it was 86 or 87. He's just trying to be geographically inclusive with the date.. ;-)
Re: Sure Joe, sure... (Score:3)
Heh. Meanwhile our previous glorious leader is wishing he was only battling a stolen luggage charge.
Re: (Score:1)
Speaking of God, wait until they hear about Frederick Christ Trump! Look! It's right there! He's the chosen one!
What's so bad about equity? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: Sure Joe, sure... (Score:1)
Biden Derangement Syndrome.
silos for batteries (Score:4, Interesting)
Unused silos seem like a good choice for battery storage.
Shaped like batteries (Score:3)
Unused silos seem like a good choice for battery storage.
Agreed. Like batteries, they're long tubes - perfect place for a large AA cell.
Re: (Score:2)
You known that many batteries are NOT "long tubes", right? In fact, the "long tube" shape has little to do with what is most suitable for a battery.
But then, there is nothing about a "long tube" that makes it a "perfect place" for storing long tubes, or irrelevant AA batteries, either. It's almost as if you're profoundly stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the cooling in there? For big batteries it's best to have them outside so they can a constant supply of fresh air, with appropriate design to shade them from direct heating by sunlight.
How about a gravity energy storage system? Put something heavy in the silo, and a crane to lift it. Lift it when cheap energy is abundant, and then let gravity lower it when you want to recover the power. Saves building a sturdy tower, and you can surround it by solar and windmills.
Who writes this stuff? (Score:2, Interesting)
First they love saying "America" instead of U.S., and now they can even spell America. Working hard to make longer headlines? Must be some kind of rebellion against newspaper sensibilities.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, I missed a letter in my post and I'm using a real keyboard!
Missed opportunity (Score:2)
Some numbers (Score:5, Informative)
We are saved. Climate change can go to sleep now. Thanks America.
Some numbers to bolster your claim.
We're currently at around 21% [eia.gov] renewable energy for the electrical grid. This includes hydro which was about 2% at the turn of the century (IIRC) and doesn't change much, so we've converted about 19% of electrical generation to green over the past 20 years.
A recent law passed by the Biden admin roughly doubled the amount of federal land available for wind and solar, and current estimates have the 21% going to 30% by 2030. A fair bit of the remainder (40%) is natural gas, which is carbon producing but very clean and thus the "lessor of evils" compared to, say, coal. (Nuclear is 20%, and coal about 19%.)
Automobiles will be quickly switched to electric under an S-curve of adoption, largely because today's electric vehicles are much better than ICE ones. At 1/3 the energy cost (electricity versus gas), low maintenance, lower TCO and huge improvements in useability, with an average auto lifetime ownership of 10 years we should expect to be rid of most of our gasoline and diesel consumption in about 20 years.
(EV sales expect to double every 2 years, Tesla is currently at 2 million vehicles per year, there are 1.3 billion ICE vehicles worldwide, so that's 10 doublings at two years per doubling.)
By the time 2030 rolls around we might expect grid scale battery systems to smooth out production and reduce the 40% dependence on natural gas by a bit, maybe a lot more rooftop solar installations, and perhaps new technologies currently under development will come online (I'm looking at you, Commonwealth Fusion).
Contrary to popular belief, we're actually reducing our carbon footprint at an astounding rate. Comparing the amount of green energy we had in 2000 versus today is nothing short of amazing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You should really read before ranting.
"In 2020, renewable energy sources (including wind, hydroelectric, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy) generated a record 834 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity, or about 21% of all the electricity generated in the United States."
21% of generated electricity, not 21% of capacity.
Re:Some numbers (Score:5, Informative)
A fair bit of the remainder (40%) is natural gas, which is carbon producing but very clean
As long as you keep telling yourself that, there is not much to add.
Natural gas is almost as bad as coal in terms of CO2 emissions. What we learn from the last issue of the Statistical Review of World Energy from BP [energyinst.org] (or from the Energy Institute since this year apparently):
- when it is burned, gas emits half as much CO2 as coal. This is why we often hear than gas is only emitting half the CO2 emissions of coal, which is good (200g CO2/kWh vs 350g CO2/kWh). This is also a lot better than Lignite for instance, which is the special kind of coal that Germany is burning for instance, and which emits twice as much as normal coal...
- however, what we can see in this review is that gas has other CO2 emissions related to it, which are often unaccounted: leaks during extraction, transportation energy needs (compressing the gas, and recompressing it along the way), leaks in transportation (pipelines), transportation through LNG tankers (gas needs to be liquefied before being loaded onto the ship, using ~10% of the gas that needs to be transported, and needs to be regasified at the destination too, also requiring energy)... The Statistical Review gives us the consolidated emissions of those "leaks": ~3.5 billion tons of CO2eq, for 7.5 billion tons of CO2eq related to the actual burning of the gas.
TL;DR: using natgas to produce electricity emits 30% less CO2eq than using coal. Or, the other way around to see it, it emits 70% of the CO2eq than using coal.
If you are in a car, driving toward a concrete wall at 150mph, slowing down a bit and saying "hey, I am now going at 70% of 150mph, I am doing good!" is just you missing the big picture. The wall will remind you of that.
Re: (Score:2)
30% by 2030 is too slow. The US can easily achieve more. The problem is entirely political.
Need detail (Score:1)
Maybe we can use the land to build large carbon capture facilities once humanity starts facing hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of
Re: (Score:3)
Cows?
Did you say . . . cows?
You are all cows! Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOOO! Mooo cows MOOOOOOOOO! You renewable-energy using cows!
Seriously though, it's probably best to focus on synthetic fuel/material production from co2/h2o feedstock if we're going to use remote DoE land tracts for renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
We could use the land to bury worn out wind turbine blades and used PV panels.
Put actual nuclear reactors there (Score:5, Interesting)
Less nimby nonsense since it's already Federal land, it ikely has a long track record of environmental and geological surveys so already very stable sites, almost pre-selected, and the "stigma" of nuclear materials is gone, they've already been there. Plus that would only require a small portion of land, plenty of room for wind and solar as well.
Re: Put actual nuclear reactors there (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
. Show me a reactor that has given more power than the costs it took to make the reactor head, sink the cement, spin the glowy stuff into more concentrated glowy stuff... and that's not including the decommission of the reactor.
Pick any currently running nuclear plant in France for instance. Literally any.
Even Flamanville, with its currently high overrun budget, will give more power than its costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, this is also why it makes sense for nuclear to be a state operation. The government can eat a loss for a decade because the overall economic upside of the extra power more than makes up for that. Private companies can't take such a broad,long term view of success nor can they leverage that economic output via taxes down the line.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you have a need to treat contaminated ground water I am sure you could fit evaporation of waste water into the equation.
Re: (Score:2)
But both types use about the same amount of water per MW, mostly for cooling of steam going thru the turbine. This is more water than a coal plant uses with steam at a more efficient and higher temperature.
Double win - electricity and waste cleanup (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Those were banned in the 1970s by Carter, for a good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Those were banned in the 1970s by Carter, for a good reason.
Carter didn't have the power to ban them globally. But they've not proven so far to be economic, so they aren't in use, not even in France.
Re: (Score:2)
Those were banned in the 1970s by Carter, for a good reason.
No, we have designs more recent than the 1970s, very much post-Carter.
Re: (Score:2)
But then they would have to build additional electric power transmission lines to bring that newly generated power to where it is needed.
As we have all seen...lots of obstacles can be created even when new power transmission lines and new pipelines have permits but Courts will not respect the Law.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but I would expect far, far less resistance to power lines than the plant itself, you can route those around issues and also bury. That's just grid stuff which would apply for a gas plant and will apply to the renewables as well.
Plus in that case for all the against power lines lobbying i bet there is a lot of business that would lobby in favor with the allure of cheap abundant power.
Re: (Score:2)
business that would lobby in favor with the allure of cheap abundant power.
Bitcoin mining.
Re: (Score:2)
Less nimby nonsense since it's already Federal land, it ikely has a long track record of environmental and geological surveys so already very stable sites, almost pre-selected, and the "stigma" of nuclear materials is gone, they've already been there. Plus that would only require a small portion of land, plenty of room for wind and solar as well.
Yep, that was my immediate thought. If you are going to do this, do something real and helpful, not just stupid posturing.
Re: (Score:3)
This land would be a good place to put the new high-temperature reactors that because they use molten salt as a coolant, can use ambient air as a heat sink. We no longer have to put unclear reactors anywhere near Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
What about water for cooling though? They probably made sure to build their nuclear launch sites well away from anywhere that might flood.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, doesn't work everywhere but Hanford and Idaho are both near rivers and this would be a great oppurtunity to test build some 3.5/4th gen designs that don't need a constant fresh water supply. The Nevada site is probably good for that as it's pretty isolated.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But can we really wait 20+ years for them to come on-stream? I think we need to prioritize.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ameria" - did dementia patient Biden write this press release?
No, it's just a MacBook(Pro) keyboard with a bad 'C' key. Mine has a bad 'M' key so I write "Aerica". :-)
Re: (Score:2)
"Aerica"
Sounds like an awesome, almost unheard of, concept album from the 1970s. Name the group!
Aerosmith, but a live album of a US tour, highlighting venues in the South. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right, it's missing an 'L' - Almeria.
John Lennon acted in a movie there once.
Hot, dry, heat so it might be good for solar...
Hanford Nuclear Reservation (Score:3)
Lots of unused land around there. Mainly as a buffer zone around the old WWII facilities currently being cleaned up. And there's a pretty good power grid infrastructure in the area. I'd suggest solar instead of wind. Because the LIGO instrument is located there and a few bad bearings in windmills rumbling could screw it up.
Re: (Score:3)
The good wind sites in the general area are already taken. It's a great spot for summertime solar though, clear skies and 16 hour days.
In the winter, sadly, it's 8 hour days and heavy overcast. By heavy I mean noon power output 1/14 of nameplate.
Same thing applies at the INEL (or whatever they call it now), lots of flat open area for PV. The jackrabbits and coyotes will appreciate the shade, as will the stupid chickens (more politely known as sage grouse.)
Re: (Score:2)
Still well worth doing though. As the world warms up the demand for cooling, which follows the high sun summer months, will keep increasing.
Did Sec. Granholm (Score:2)
"Cleanup to Clean Energy" - Uh, not really cleanup (Score:2)
Unless you are building modern nuclear reactors that can consume weapons grade material and high level nuclear waste as fuel, then no we are not really cleaning things up from our weapons program, nor the mess from the energy side.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, by all means, show me one of those molten salt breeder reactors (which are still illegal to make since Carter's moratorium), or one of these thorium reactors actually exist, much less work with a net energy gain. Lots of talky-talk about that, but even the latest reactors made are virtually unchanged from designs from the 1950s, with a coolant pump failure sending the core to leave a molten trail, eventually to cool itself off in the water table.
Nuclear displaces fossil fuel, not renewables (Score:3)
Please, by all means, show me one of those molten salt breeder reactors (which are still illegal to make since Carter's moratorium), or one of these thorium reactors actually exist, much less work with a net energy gain. Lots of talky-talk about that, but even the latest reactors made are virtually unchanged from designs from the 1950s, with a coolant pump failure sending the core to leave a molten trail, eventually to cool itself off in the water table.
Actually I think there was a research reactor running just fine in the 1990s. Clinton ordered it shut down as a payback to the greens that supported him.
Note that many of those old greens have admitted their mistake and will now concede that nuclear should be part of the plan to end fossil fuel use. This includes a founder of Greenpeace.
Nuclear is not the enemy, it complements renewables not displaces them, nuclear replaces fossil fuels. The longer you oppose nuclear the more fossil fuels you force to
Unicorn Fart Accept No Substitution (Score:1)
We'll be powered by Unicorn Fart. It's far more likely than what's being proposed here.
Working with tribes? (Score:2)
America or the United States of America? (Score:2)