CZ:Featured article/Current: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chunbum Park
imported>John Stephenson
(template)
 
(76 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== '''[[Liquefied natural gas]]''' ==
{{:{{FeaturedArticleTitle}}}}
----
<small>
 
==Footnotes==
'''Liquefied natural gas''' or '''LNG''' is [[natural gas]] (consisting primarily of [[methane]], CH<sub>4</sub>) that has been converted into [[liquid]] form for ease of transport and storage. More simply put, it is the liquid form of  the natural gas that people use in their homes for cooking and for heating,
 
A typical raw natural gas contains only about 80% methane and a number of higher boiling [[hydrocarbons]] as well as a number of impurities. Before it is liquefied, it  is typically purified so as to remove the higher-boiling hydrocarbons and the impurities. The resultant liquefied natural gas contains about 95% or more methane and it is a 
clear, colorless and essentially odorless liquid which is neither corrosive nor toxic.<ref name=CalifEnergyCommission>[http://www.energy,ca.gov./faq.html Frequently Asked Questions About LNG] From the website of the [[California Energy Commission]]</ref><ref name=CEE>[http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/LNG_introduction.php Introduction To LNG] Michelle Michot Foss (updated January 2007), Center for Energy Economics (CEE), Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas</ref>  
 
LNG occupies only a very small fraction (1/600th) of the [[volume]] of natural gas and is therefore more economical to transport across large distances. It can also be stored in large quantities that would be impractical for storage as a gas.<ref name=CalifEnergyCommission>[http://www.energy,ca.gov./faq.html Frequently Asked Questions About LNG] From the website of the [[California Energy Commission]]</ref><ref name=CEE>[http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/LNG_introduction.php Introduction To LNG] Michelle Michot Foss (January 2007), Center for Energy Economics (CEE), Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas</ref>
 
 
''[[Liquefied natural gas|.... (read more)]]''
 
{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" style="width: 90%; float: center; margin: 0.5em 1em 0.8em 0px;"
|-
! style="text-align: center;" | &nbsp;[[Liquefied natural gas#References|notes]]
|-
|
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
|}
</small>

Latest revision as of 10:19, 11 September 2020

After decades of failure to slow the rising global consumption of coal, oil and gas,[1] many countries have proceeded as of 2024 to reconsider nuclear power in order to lower the demand for fossil fuels.[2] Wind and solar power alone, without large-scale storage for these intermittent sources, are unlikely to meet the world's needs for reliable energy.[3][4][5] See Figures 1 and 2 on the magnitude of the world energy challenge.

Nuclear power plants that use nuclear reactors to create electricity could provide the abundant, zero-carbon, dispatchable[6] energy needed for a low-carbon future, but not by simply building more of what we already have. New innovative designs for nuclear reactors are needed to avoid the problems of the past.

(CC) Image: Geoff Russell
Fig.1 Electricity consumption may soon double, mostly from coal-fired power plants in the developing world.[7]

Issues Confronting the Nuclear Industry

New reactor designers have sought to address issues that have prevented the acceptance of nuclear power, including safety, waste management, weapons proliferation, and cost. This article will summarize the questions that have been raised and the criteria that have been established for evaluating these designs. Answers to these questions will be provided by the designers of these reactors in the articles on their designs. Further debate will be provided in the Discussion and the Debate Guide pages of those articles.

Footnotes

  1. Global Energy Growth by Our World In Data
  2. Public figures who have reconsidered their stance on nuclear power are listed on the External Links tab of this article.
  3. Pumped storage is currently the most economical way to store electricity, but it requires a large reservoir on a nearby hill or in an abandoned mine. Li-ion battery systems at $500 per KWh are not practical for utility-scale storage. See Energy Storage for a summary of other alternatives.
  4. Utilities that include wind and solar power in their grid must have non-intermittent generating capacity (typically fossil fuels) to handle maximum demand for several days. They can save on fuel, but the cost of the plant is the same with or without intermittent sources.
  5. Mark Jacobson believes that long-distance transmission lines can provide an alternative to costly storage. See the bibliography for more on this proposal and the critique by Christopher Clack.
  6. "Load following" is the term used by utilities, and is important when there is a lot of wind and solar on the grid. Some reactors are not able to do this.
  7. Fig.1.3 in Devanney "Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop"