Term Paper - James Kollaja

Running Head: NATURAL GAS TO NUCLEAR
Natural Gas to Nuclear: The only realistic option to decrease carbon emissions
while meeting energy demand
James Kollaja
Texas A&M University Kingsville

NATURAL GAS TO NUCLEAR 2
Abstract
The current global need for energy includes both reducing carbon emissions while meeting
increasing energy demands. Natural gas and nuclear power are the only sources of energy that can
realistically meet both of these expectations. The paper will set out to provide three specific
directives. The first, to show that natural gas and nuclear power will drastically reduce current
carbon emissions. This will occur through converting coal fired power plants to use natural gas
turbines and utilizing CNG in the transportation sector, in the short term. The utilization of natural
gas in the short term will allow for the development of new nuclear power facilities, which take
considerable time to permit and construct. Nuclear power, with new technology utilizing thorium-
based nuclear power, will drastically reduce carbon emissions, provide a safe and stable energy
source, and meet increasing demand. Secondly, natural gas and nuclear power will be shown to meet
increases in global energy demand, while renewables do not and cannot. Analysis of energy density
and energy production through renewable sources of energy show that even significant investments
in these technologies have only a minimal effect on meeting global demand increases. Finally, a plan
to implement natural gas use and expedite the permitting and construction of more nuclear power
facilities to meet global energy demand will be discussed.

Introduction
The complex problem that faces the world is how to reduce carbon emissions while still
meeting the increasing energy demand globally. This is a difficult problem with issues that are
basically juxtaposed to each other, based on global energy history. In order to obtain greater energy
density we have turned to fossil fuels, especially oil and coal, to fulfill our global energy needs.
Although energy use in OECD countries has declined in recent years, global energy use is still
increasing due to non-OECD countries that are still developing and trying to supply their people
with cheap and reliable energy.
In the meantime, reducing carbon emissions in an effort to curb global warming has taken
center stage and been made a priority. The belief or non-belief in global warming as a result of
carbon emissions is irrelevant when considering the position taken by this paper. Clean air is an
aspect that everyone can agree upon and reducing carbon emissions is the main component of this
aspect. Even if clean air is not important to the reader, the energy plan set forth is this paper has
tremendous economic benefits in the way of reducing the overall costs of energy. Countries with
lower costs of energy enjoy greater economic benefits because so much of their incomes are not
consumed obtaining energy. Cheap reliable energy helps an economy thrive. The natural gas to
nuclear plan set forth in this paper not only reduces carbon emissions but also provides the most
efficient and cost effective method of cheap reliable energy with the ability to meet increasing
demand. Although there has been increasing popularity in renewable energy resources such as wind,
solar, ethanol, and biomass, none of these sources of energy can provide the scale of energy required
now or in the future. Current research utilizing basic facts based on physics and mathematics from
various publications will prove these points.

Literature Review
Reducing Carbon Emissions
The science behind the natural gas to nuclear plan is undeniable. First, we will show that
natural gas and nuclear will reduce carbon emissions. By its nature, natural gas has less carbon
emissions than other fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nuclear has no carbon emissions. Natural gas
contains far fewer carbon atoms for every burnable hydrogen atom. “Coal has a C:H ratio of about
2:1. Coal lost out to oil, which has even higher energy density as well as easier handling
characteristics. In addition, oil has a C:H ratio of about 1: 2. Now we are seeing the rise of natural
gas (methane), which, as its chemical formula (CH4) suggests, has a C:H ratio of 1: 4, or 1 carbon
atom for every 4 hydrogens” (Bryce, 2011). This shows the obvious chemical facts that natural gas
leads to far less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels. In fact, “natural gas has become the
preferred fuel for new power generation projects. Between 1997 and 2008, the volume of gas used
for electricity production in the United States increased by 64 percent” (Bryce, 2011). Further
analysis of emissions show that natural gas is the fossil fuel of choice when it comes to clean air.
“During combustion, natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal and releases no
particulates. Nor does it release significant quantities of sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, two of the
most problematic air pollutants” (Bryce, 2011). This advantage makes natural gas a clear immediate
leader, especially as it pertains to the Environmental Protection Agency issuing the Clean Air
Interstate Rule which seeks to reduce these two pollutants by 70 percent by the year 2015. This Act,
along with the Clean Air Mercury Rule aiming to reduce mercury releases from coal-fired power
plants, makes natural gas an obvious alternative for the short term. Natural gas turbine conversions
of existing coal-fired power plants achieves this goal quickly, with far less investment than any other
alternative.

Additionally, nuclear power has no carbon emissions, and should be considered as a long
term solution. Advocates against the nuclear power industry will cite nuclear waste as their main
objection. This is relevant to our discussion because it is nuclear waste that would be equivalent to
the carbon waste associated with fossil fuels. However, the amount of waste is miniscule and can be
safely stored. “For instance, a 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor produces about 20 cubic meters of
solid waste per year” (Bryce, 2011). Comparing this to the coal-fired power plants, this is a
staggering decline in waste. “In 2007 alone, coal-fired power plants in the United States generated
131 million tons of coal ash— and much of that material is contaminated with heavy metals. Thus,
in one year, the U.S. coal industry produces nearly 2,200 times as much solid waste as the U.S.
nuclear industry has produced in more than four decades” (Bryce, 2011).
Given the data discussed, it is clear that converting existing coal and oil based energy sources
with natural gas, and in the future nuclear power, will drastically reduce emissions. Proponents of
renewable energy sources will argue that solar, wind, ethanol, and biomass will reduce these
emissions even further. However, they neglect to discuss the inability of these sources to create the
scale of energy needed as well as provide that energy efficiently and at a low cost.
Meeting Demand and Scale
Natural gas and nuclear power are the only energy sources that can reduce emissions and at
the same time provide the scale that is needed with increasing global demand. Renewables cannot
achieve this demand and even incremental increases in renewables are not efficient in many ways,
compared to natural gas and nuclear. The issue is centered on the topic of energy density. That is,
the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space. An energy source that requires less
space has greater energy density than an alternative energy source. Energy density is of utmost
importance in order for that source to realistically meet demand. In addition, the land space required

for such a source is equally as important. Using various studies, the land use of various energy
sources has been calculated and mapped in order to compare the power densities of these energy
sources against each other. Figure 1 displays the data comparing the land use requirements.
Figure 1: Comparing the Power Densities of Various Fuels (Bryce, 2011)
By examining the data, it is apparent that renewable energy sources have the lowest energy
densities. “Wind power requires about 45 times as much land to produce a comparable amount of
power as nuclear, and solar photovoltaic power requires about 8 times as much land as nuclear. The
corn ethanol scam is even worse, requiring about 1,150 times as much land as nuclear” (Bryce,
2011). Utilizing data from the Nature Conservancy, a more conservative study states, “when
considering all land-use impacts, corn ethanol requires about 144 times as much land as nuclear,

wind power requires about 30 times as much, and solar photovoltaic requires about 15 times as
much” (McDonald, 2009). The same study found that, “wind power generation requires nearly 4
times as much land as natural gas and about 7 times as much as coal” (McDonald, 2009). Regardless
of the source, it is obvious that renewables simply cannot match the energy density of natural gas,
much less that of nuclear. There is simply not enough land in the world to support energy demand.
Another startling issue is the concrete and steel requirements of various energy sources.
Concrete and steel must not only be considered as an issue of efficiency and cost in order to make
that energy source realistic, but also in terms of carbon emissions. Concrete and steel require vast
amounts of energy to produce, which, at the present time, still comes mainly from energy sources
that have large carbon footprints. Since wind power requires so much of these resources, it cannot
be considered emission free or realistic in a cost effective manner. Figure 2 details the concrete and
steel requirements of various energy sources.
Figure 2: Resource Intensity of Electric Power Generation Capacity: Comparing Wind with Natural
Gas, Nuclear, and Coal (Bryce, 2011)

Finally, the required investment to produce energy to meet demands while lowering
emissions heavily favors natural gas and nuclear power. Figure 3 illustrates annual U.S. energy
production on a barrel of oil equivalent (BOE), so that current rates of energy production from
various sources can be analyzed.
Figure 3: Annual U.S. Energy Production: Comparing Wind and Solar with Other Energy Sources
(Bryce, 2011)
This data illustrates that no matter how many resources or how much money is allocated to
renewable sources, they will not produce the BOE necessary to meet demand. One nuclear power
plant in South Texas equals nearly half of all BOE U.S. wind and solar energy sources combined.
The production of energy from these sources is simply not mathematically possible to meet
incremental demand, much less overall demand. To emphasize the energy density of nuclear power,
one study states “about 2,000 tons of uranium-235 can release as much energy as burning 4.2 billion
tons of oil” (Crane, 2010). In contrast, a 2008 report by Cambridge Energy Research Associates

(CERA) concluded that, “wind power is more expensive than conventional power generation, in
part because wind’s intermittent production patterns need to be augmented with dispatchable
generators to match power demand…and has limited capability as a capacity resource as its
production patterns generally do not correlate well with peak summer demand. Consequently, the
capacity provided by wind projects is typically valued at 10% to 20% of their maximum rated
capacity” (Bryce, 2011). Furthermore, The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) stated in a
2009 report that, “just 708 megawatts of the state’s wind-generation capacity could actually be
counted on as reliable. With total summer generation needs of 72,648 megawatts, the vast majority
of which comes from gas-fired generation, wind power was providing just 1 percent of Texas’s total
reliable generation portfolio” (Bryce, 2011).
Detractors of this plan will cite natural gas as being a nonrenewable source of energy that
will eventually be exhausted. However, with the introduction of horizontal drilling and fracking,
plentiful amounts of natural gas are available. In a recent IEA report, “estimated recoverable global
gas resources— which includes both conventional and unconventional gas— at some 30,000 trillion
cubic feet” (IEA, 2009). This amount is the energy equivalent of about 5.4 trillion barrels of oil.
Additionally, radioactive material needed for nuclear power such as uranium-235 is also plentiful.
“At the current rate of worldwide use, identified resources are sufficient to meet demand for
approximately 90 years” (OECD, 2010). However, uranium reserves “may be sufficient for 230
years when undiscovered resources are included in the reckoning” (Fetter, 2009). Further
exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate
over time. Thorium is recently being considered as an alternate to uranium. It is both more plentiful
and more stable. Recent world resource estimates of thorium far exceed the identified resources of
uranium. Neither of these estimates includes plutonium or the new technologies being introduced of

using disassembled nuclear weapons or stored nuclear waste, both of which are currently being
explored.
Finally, detractors will also cite the cost of nuclear power to be excessive, whether speaking
on current operations or construction. However, if costs are calculated on a per megawatt-hour or
per kilowatt of capacity basis, nuclear is cheaper to operate and can be cheaper than wind power to
construct, as suggested in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Figure 4: International Energy Agency's projected Costs for Commercial Electricity Generation that
Begin Operations from 2015 to 2020, in Dollars Per Megawatt-Hour (Bryce, 2011).

Figure 5: Estimated Construction Cost of Various Electric Generation Plants (Bryce, 2011)
These figures show that when energy density is considered, nuclear and natural gas are the
options of choice concerning carbon emission and costs, simultaneously. This does not even include
the advancements in modular construction of nuclear reactors that is recently being analyzed and
utilized. Modular construction allows for nuclear reactors to be built at a central fabrication site and
then shipped to their destinations. Along with the use of thorium, a more abundant and less volatile
nuclear fuel, the cost of nuclear reactors and their power plant construction will continue to decline.
In fact, “the CEO of Lightbridge says that his company’s thorium fuel rods can be used in existing
reactors without any modifications and that the thorium fuel would be about 5 to 15 percent
cheaper than comparable amounts of uranium” (Bryce, 2011). Lightbridge also claims that the
thorium fuel cycle produces far less radioactive waste than uranium.
Initiating a Plan
A plan must be set in place to achieve the natural gas to nuclear power energy policy set
forth in this paper. This plan has four parts. The first is to promote natural gas and nuclear power
tax incentives, equivalent subsidies, and reduced bureaucratic “red tape”. Secondly, to encourage oil

and gas production in the U.S., especially in the area of fracking and horizontal drilling. Thirdly, to
promote energy efficiency through mandates or incentives. Finally, to continue to invest in
renewables and energy storage technology especially in the area of batteries and compressed-air
storage.
Currently, the U.S. energy policy does not promote natural gas and nuclear power in any
type of equivalent manner compared to renewables. Many policies of the current administration and
EPA have stifled nuclear progression. The U.S. government has produced a very uneven playing
field as it continues to promote the energy sources it feels are best, without analyzing the scientific
data which disputes the claims that these sources can meet demand or be efficient in any reasonable
manner. Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrate the favorability and unequal playing field through federal
subsidies. Figure 6 illustrates subsidies to sources not related to electrical production (hence the
elimination of nuclear) while Figure 7 illustrates subsidies to sources related to electrical production.
Figure 6: Federal Energy Subsidies Not Related to Electricity Production, 2007 (Bryce, 2011)

Figure 7: Federal Energy Subsidies for Electricity Production, 2007 (Bryce, 2011)
Summarizing the data from Figure 6, “in 2007, the wind power sector got 93 times as much
in federal subsidies as the natural gas sector even though the gas sector produced 28 times more
electricity than wind. 34 Solar is even worse. It received 97 times as much in subsidies per megawatt-
hour produced as gas, even though the gas-fired electric sector produced 900 times as much
electricity as solar” (Bryce, 2011). This inadequacy hinders the ability of current coal-fired powered
plants to make the conversion to natural gas turbines. This conversion in necessary both for
reducing emissions in the short term, maintaining supply, and reducing costs. While the conversion
may be costly, the extremely low cost of natural gas makes the break-even analysis favor natural gas
over the long term. With greater tax incentives or federal subsidies to the natural gas industry to
make these conversions, the natural gas portion of the energy plan is easily attainable.
Summarizing the data from Figure 7, “when measured on per-unit-of-output basis, wind and
solar are getting about 15 times as much in federal subsidies as nuclear even though nuclear is
producing about 25 times as much energy as wind and solar combined” (Bryce, 2011). The statistics
of governmental favor for renewable sources of energy is even more staggering from the above
quote. Because nuclear power needs approval through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for

reactor licensing and renewal, licensing radioactive materials, radionuclide safety, and managing the
storage, security, recycling, and disposal of spent fuel, positive and constructive governmental
involvement is critical. The ability of politicians to thwart new plants or disposal sites is evident in
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decimating of funds for the nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca
Mountain. Taxpayer’s had already spent two decades and $13.5 billion researching and developing
the site, only to be held up by licensing due to political posturing. Government must be willing to
streamline the licensing and approval of nuclear facilities for increased nuclear power to be a near-
future option.
The second step of encouraging oil and gas production in the U.S. is vital in reducing costs.
Natural gas is typically found where oil is found. By increased drilling, especially with advances in
horizontal drilling and fracking, the U.S. will gain access to vast amounts of fuel not previously
attainable. Since natural gas is more easily utilized regionally, without undergoing the expense of
LNG transportation, energy costs can be held down even further. By tapping into our regional
sources of natural gas, the break-even analysis for power plant conversion will look even more
favorable than before. As long as safe methods of fracking are utilized to ensure the safety of water
supplies, increased drilling should be encouraged. There is a possibility that the EPA or future
administrations will create more impediments to increased drilling. This approach would be a
mistake if the goal is for carbon emissions to continue to decline. The oil and gas industry must
maintain safety of aquifers while continuing to increase production.
Promotion of energy efficiency is the third step in the plan. Many activists for renewable
energy sources will cite energy efficiency as part of their plan. They assume to have ownership over
the idea of energy efficiency and claim that, if you oppose their ideas to fossil fuels or nuclear power,
you are also against energy efficiency. This is a fallacy. Energy efficiency is simply good engineering
and business practice. Engineers are constantly investigating new ways to make technology more

efficient. Increased efficiency increases the bottom line and therefore is a welcomed opportunity to
business. Exercising our abilities to innovate and conserve through energy efficiency is a central
component to this energy plan and any energy plan. The more energy is used efficiently, the lower
the overall cost of a project. The greatest advances in efficiency have been in the area of HVAC.
Whether this efficiency comes from government mandates or through the private sector, all
advances are welcome.
Finally, the energy plan does require the continued investment in renewable energy sources.
Although this paper continually cites these sources as being inefficient, the areas that do have
promise are energy storage technology, especially in the area of batteries and compressed-air storage.
A large issue with solar power and electric vehicles is the inability of batteries to store significant
energy in small areas. Energy density in batteries is a promising area that is being researched. If
batteries and compressed-air storage can make technological leaps in the future, the costs of solar
power and electric vehicles will continue to decrease, along with gaining popularity.

Conclusion
Natural gas to nuclear power is an energy policy that research shows to achieve the
important goals of reducing emissions while at the same time meet increasing demand. These energy
sources have great energy densities that far surpass any renewable sources of energy. The issue of
increasing scale to meet demand is one that renewables cannot overcome. Conversely, natural gas in
the immediate future, and nuclear power in the coming years, answer this issue of scale and can meet
demand while reducing carbon emissions. In fact, the IEA declared that “nuclear technology is the
only large-scale, baseload, electricity-generation technology with a near-zero carbon footprint” (IEA,
2009).
The results of this paper are commiserate with the IEA’s findings, but at the same time
provide immediate answers to carbon emissions through natural gas conversions to existing coal-
fired power plants. The four step approach to initiating the natural gas to nuclear plan is simple and
straightforward. If policy makers and institutions simply look at the facts and initiate the plan of
equivalent federal treatment, increased drilling, increased energy efficiency, and research into
renewable energy storage technology, we can reduce emissions and meet energy demand
simultaneously. Initiating the natural gas to nuclear energy plan comes with significant cost and
resource savings which can be scaled to meet demand, in contrast to renewable energy sources
which are not scalable, inefficient, and resource intensive.

References
Bryce, Robert. (2011). Power Hungry: The Myths of "Green" Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. New
York, NY: PublicAffairs.
Crane, H., Kinderman, E., Malhotra, R. (2010). A Cubic Mile of Oil: Realities and Options for Averting the
Looming Global Energy Crisis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fetter, S. (2009). How Long Will the World’s Uranium Supplies Last? Scientific American, March,
2009.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2009). World Energy Outlook 2009. Paris, France:
International Energy Agency (IEA).
McDonald, R.I., Fargione, J., Kiesecker, J., Miller, W.M., Powell, J. (2009). Energy Sprawl or Energy
Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the
United States of America. PLoS ONE 4(8): e6802. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006802
OECD. (2010). Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand. OECD NEA Publication 6891.
pp. 456.

Term Paper - James Kollaja

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (19)

Ähnlich wie Term Paper - James Kollaja

Ähnlich wie Term Paper - James Kollaja (20)

Term Paper - James Kollaja