- #911
Buckleymanor
- 644
- 27
Says it all, I wan't a job as an administrator.
YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis
- Thread starter russ_watters
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy
In summary: Phase 3, 50 years, decision-making, maintenance, and possible expansion. -Continue implimenting the solutions from Phase 2, with the goal of reaching net-zero emissions. This would be a huge undertaking and would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. -Maintain the current infrastructure (roads, buildings, factories) and find ways to make them more energy efficient. -Explore the possibility of expanding the frontier of science and technology, looking into things like artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and genetic engineering. This could lead to new and even more amazing discoveries, but it would also cost a fortune.
- #912
Traxfam
- 7
- 1
Give me break, it is a realistic number considering who would be running the program. If it could be privatized, 5-10% would be realistic.
- #913
Crazymechanic
- 831
- 12
While suggesting energy production principles we always have to remember not only science but the human psychology.As in the end of the day the average consumer is not a a scientist in fact most of them do know only that "radiation kills" they never know which one , how much from where at what circumstances.
Radiation is dangerous no doubt and a coal plant will always be better looking because people know that the worst thing it can happen there is a fire or an explosion of a pressure tank which usually not takes any lives if only a few.People don't see long term effects like smoke from chimneys.
Speaking about nuclear with all the budget that was spent on military purposes only both from the US and the USSR it would have been enough to build a dozen "Chernobyls" but a thousand times safer and probably underground so that even in the case of an accident no serious harm would be done to the atmosphere.
In fact the Chernobyl RBMK type reactor turned out such a tragedy basically because of two reasons and believe it or not all of them very directly political and human in nature not technical.
The reactor was huge (the biggest and most powerful type of reactor in the world at the time) and it was pushed to be constructed fast because two things , firstly they needed a lot of electricity for the factories and houses both military and civilian and they needed ever more plutonium which was ofcourse only because of military use.
Russia had a lot of great nuclear physicists and they could have built the reactor much safer and with a safety building and all those things but the government never listened to any of that , they were too busy with conquering the world and making a communist revolution than looking after things in the motherland.The USSR was too busy of supplying airplanes and fighter jets to all kinds of third world countries in Africa, Latin America.
So it all is political in nature.
Chernobyl was a huge mistake made by poor judgment , utterly careless leadership and a few quite ambitious operators that tragic night who were not given the full design properties and parameters of the reactor they were pushing to the limits, why? Because of the unimaginable secrecy that was the key element of the many victories and also defeats of the USSR.
So now after all that I said the media actually is doing a lot of bad things because they don't tell the truth as it is , they say that nuclear reactors are unsafe.That is not true that is FALSE. As I said it was not the fault of the reactor even though the RBMK type is a pretty dangerous machine with some nasty drawbacks like the positive void coefficient (water coolant increases in pressure when lower pump speeds are switch on and it causes steam to form which in the case of RBMK slows down the neutron absorption and hence an increase in reactivity)
Now with all these drawbacks , in a little country called Lithuania two RBMK 1500 type reactors were built in 1975.They were enough to supply almoust the whole country And they were working with not a slightest mistake or problem throughout the almoust 30 years of their lifespan which would have been longer if not for the EU advice to shut them down because Europarlament is full with people who are against nuclear energy.
So what is the lesson from this.Even a unsafe by design reactor can work with no problems throughout the years then why can't we build much safer ones better ones even underground ones or strongly protected and everything would be fine.
Even if the Chernobyl reactor would have been encapsulated heavily like some scientists proposed to do it before building then there would be no massive fallout at all it would be just a local problem.remember that the reactor once blown up was practically like a camp fire burning wide open.
So I think that to increase the efficiency of our lights , heating and other civil everyday uses is a primary task , then building safe nuclear reactors is also the primary task , and then let's not wait but look for the possible fusion future , but while not let's stick with the fission present and ever increasing levels of efficiency.
let's be real no wind no solar will ever be able to fully produce our energy demand, by 2050 there will be about 10 000 000 000 people in the world and if their average income will also increase the energy demand will just grow.This is not a problem for the US this is a problem for the world.Even countries like China Russia and Brazil with all their huge rivers cannot supply all their demand from Hydro power , so nuclear will have to kick in.
The population is growing but the amount of sun we get doesn't increase like that also the gravitational potential of water doesn't increase much as the rivers are how they are.So these are the kind of resources which although renewable are limited to only a certain maximum amount of energy , nuclear is not , you can push the limits evermore.
And if fusion will come in then there is a huge headroom for future increase in demand also a extremely lowered risk of accident.
Radiation is dangerous no doubt and a coal plant will always be better looking because people know that the worst thing it can happen there is a fire or an explosion of a pressure tank which usually not takes any lives if only a few.People don't see long term effects like smoke from chimneys.
Speaking about nuclear with all the budget that was spent on military purposes only both from the US and the USSR it would have been enough to build a dozen "Chernobyls" but a thousand times safer and probably underground so that even in the case of an accident no serious harm would be done to the atmosphere.
In fact the Chernobyl RBMK type reactor turned out such a tragedy basically because of two reasons and believe it or not all of them very directly political and human in nature not technical.
The reactor was huge (the biggest and most powerful type of reactor in the world at the time) and it was pushed to be constructed fast because two things , firstly they needed a lot of electricity for the factories and houses both military and civilian and they needed ever more plutonium which was ofcourse only because of military use.
Russia had a lot of great nuclear physicists and they could have built the reactor much safer and with a safety building and all those things but the government never listened to any of that , they were too busy with conquering the world and making a communist revolution than looking after things in the motherland.The USSR was too busy of supplying airplanes and fighter jets to all kinds of third world countries in Africa, Latin America.
So it all is political in nature.
Chernobyl was a huge mistake made by poor judgment , utterly careless leadership and a few quite ambitious operators that tragic night who were not given the full design properties and parameters of the reactor they were pushing to the limits, why? Because of the unimaginable secrecy that was the key element of the many victories and also defeats of the USSR.
So now after all that I said the media actually is doing a lot of bad things because they don't tell the truth as it is , they say that nuclear reactors are unsafe.That is not true that is FALSE. As I said it was not the fault of the reactor even though the RBMK type is a pretty dangerous machine with some nasty drawbacks like the positive void coefficient (water coolant increases in pressure when lower pump speeds are switch on and it causes steam to form which in the case of RBMK slows down the neutron absorption and hence an increase in reactivity)
Now with all these drawbacks , in a little country called Lithuania two RBMK 1500 type reactors were built in 1975.They were enough to supply almoust the whole country And they were working with not a slightest mistake or problem throughout the almoust 30 years of their lifespan which would have been longer if not for the EU advice to shut them down because Europarlament is full with people who are against nuclear energy.
So what is the lesson from this.Even a unsafe by design reactor can work with no problems throughout the years then why can't we build much safer ones better ones even underground ones or strongly protected and everything would be fine.
Even if the Chernobyl reactor would have been encapsulated heavily like some scientists proposed to do it before building then there would be no massive fallout at all it would be just a local problem.remember that the reactor once blown up was practically like a camp fire burning wide open.
So I think that to increase the efficiency of our lights , heating and other civil everyday uses is a primary task , then building safe nuclear reactors is also the primary task , and then let's not wait but look for the possible fusion future , but while not let's stick with the fission present and ever increasing levels of efficiency.
let's be real no wind no solar will ever be able to fully produce our energy demand, by 2050 there will be about 10 000 000 000 people in the world and if their average income will also increase the energy demand will just grow.This is not a problem for the US this is a problem for the world.Even countries like China Russia and Brazil with all their huge rivers cannot supply all their demand from Hydro power , so nuclear will have to kick in.
The population is growing but the amount of sun we get doesn't increase like that also the gravitational potential of water doesn't increase much as the rivers are how they are.So these are the kind of resources which although renewable are limited to only a certain maximum amount of energy , nuclear is not , you can push the limits evermore.
And if fusion will come in then there is a huge headroom for future increase in demand also a extremely lowered risk of accident.
Last edited:
- #914
Felchi
- 32
- 0
Even with the safety of nuclear reactors, the average consumer, as you say, would never stand for large scale implementation of nuclear near arable land or human settlements. Thus if many are built, they will probably be far from human settlements, leading to large loss of energy over the transmission distance.
- #915
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
What problems?Straw_Cat said:
- #916
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
Machines that require near perfect human control, all the time, else the result is catastrophic accident can fairly be called dangerous machines. The RBMK was a dangerous design.Crazymechanic said:
- #917
Crazymechanic
- 831
- 12
I never said RBMK were not dangerous but I tried to point out why they were dangerous , again who makes a reactor , who builds it who operates it and etc , it's all humans all the way, starting from he blueprints ending with the actual design and control of it.Now who's to blame the reactor for that it did not have enough security systems and a better design with less drawbacks or the humans who deliberately built such a machine because the political ideology pressed upon fast and large amounts of cheap electricity and also most importantly a huge supply of plutonium for the military and ofcourse in such design objectives the RBMK did very good.
It was a powerful machine in the right hands.
So the storyline is that everything can be safe and everything can be dangerous it all depends on the "man" who uses it and builds it.
A kitchen knife is one of the oldest tools that helps us with cooking and making food it also is the most famous and widely used murder or attack tool in the world.
Now what are we about to do , make all knives illegal? Or teach the public , judge the guilty and make a batter tomorrow? I think the same applies to nuclear energy.Things can't be good or bad they are just things if we use them with care and wisely not for short profit and bad capitalist intentions then they can actually work and we can design better and better ones.
In the end of the day it is not about nuclear energy or oil or CO2 pollution it's about us and how we want to see the world and are we ready to do something to make a better tomorrow or just live for the moment (which is vastly advocated these days) and make as much profit and not care about the rest.
It was a powerful machine in the right hands.
So the storyline is that everything can be safe and everything can be dangerous it all depends on the "man" who uses it and builds it.
A kitchen knife is one of the oldest tools that helps us with cooking and making food it also is the most famous and widely used murder or attack tool in the world.
Now what are we about to do , make all knives illegal? Or teach the public , judge the guilty and make a batter tomorrow? I think the same applies to nuclear energy.Things can't be good or bad they are just things if we use them with care and wisely not for short profit and bad capitalist intentions then they can actually work and we can design better and better ones.
In the end of the day it is not about nuclear energy or oil or CO2 pollution it's about us and how we want to see the world and are we ready to do something to make a better tomorrow or just live for the moment (which is vastly advocated these days) and make as much profit and not care about the rest.
- #918
Mike_In_Plano
- 702
- 35
Energy production and economy are intractable. What may be considered an energy problem may also be considered an economic opportunity. Thus anything proposed must offset existing interests.
Ultimately, it is very difficult to argue against the long term viability and cost benefit of breeder reactor technology augmented with waste fuel refinement.
All of the necessarily technology is well established. And the thorough used of the fuel would establish electrical generation that could sustain our current rate of consumption for thousands of years.
The drawbacks are many fold with this almost ideal source of electricity:
1 - Investors in low cost natural gas plants and natural gas production would be strongly opposed to the competition.
2 - Those who are rightly opposed to nuclear power based upon the slipshod way it has been managed in the past (i.e. waste without a plan) will be in opposition.
3 - International actors will be very upset with the notion of plutonium generation from these facilities. I've read that there's an isotope of plutonium that poisons it as a bomb material and is exceedingly difficult to remove. Perhaps that would be a work about.
4 - In the end, there is still waste. Less waste, but still it must be dealt with.
In any case, the breeder reactor is my energy source of choice. Some point out that thorium processes may be the big breakthrough, and they may. But for now, this is the most fuel efficient process that we have at our disposal.
Ultimately, it is very difficult to argue against the long term viability and cost benefit of breeder reactor technology augmented with waste fuel refinement.
All of the necessarily technology is well established. And the thorough used of the fuel would establish electrical generation that could sustain our current rate of consumption for thousands of years.
The drawbacks are many fold with this almost ideal source of electricity:
1 - Investors in low cost natural gas plants and natural gas production would be strongly opposed to the competition.
2 - Those who are rightly opposed to nuclear power based upon the slipshod way it has been managed in the past (i.e. waste without a plan) will be in opposition.
3 - International actors will be very upset with the notion of plutonium generation from these facilities. I've read that there's an isotope of plutonium that poisons it as a bomb material and is exceedingly difficult to remove. Perhaps that would be a work about.
4 - In the end, there is still waste. Less waste, but still it must be dealt with.
In any case, the breeder reactor is my energy source of choice. Some point out that thorium processes may be the big breakthrough, and they may. But for now, this is the most fuel efficient process that we have at our disposal.
- #919
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
Depends on the waste. If no actinides are produced then the waste must only be dealt with for order of decades before it decays away.Mike_In_Plano said:
- #920
Alt-Bringer
- 35
- 3
seems like its been awhile since anyone posted here, but since its pinned...
it may have been said but, there is some research going into the bioelectric systems of electric eels
mainly to create a small scale synthetic version of their systems, for use in powering medical devices
like pacemakers
if they get that far, the next logical step would be "can we up-scale to create self-charging batteries"
starting most likely at cellphones then going to automotive, and evetually to "battery plants" (power stations)
it may have been said but, there is some research going into the bioelectric systems of electric eels
mainly to create a small scale synthetic version of their systems, for use in powering medical devices
like pacemakers
if they get that far, the next logical step would be "can we up-scale to create self-charging batteries"
starting most likely at cellphones then going to automotive, and evetually to "battery plants" (power stations)
- #921
par10
- 2
- 0
gmax137 said:
your answer is pretty much what I was getting at, however there is alwas excess in power production, at night plant has to be kept on line in case it is needed, it is accepted that the power producers have refined the art of assessing what the power requirements are for each hour of the day, but they always have to ensure that power is available.
Windmills will provide excess power during the night when conventional Gas, Coal or Nuclear power stations are kept on line because it is to costly to shut them down overnight. Providing the wind blows then windmills will generate power.
The point about furnaces being manufactured to suit the fuel is accepted but what would the cost of new furnaces be compared to complete new power stations?
- #922
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,424
- 3,115
Alt-Bringer said:
Interesting: Designing artificial cells to harness the biological ion concentration gradient
I would research this further, but I would be late for work.
One problem I see with the system, is that it is fish based. Fish eat. Things that eat, poop. I'm already tired of changing the oil in my automobile, and don't look forward to changing its diapers.
And cellphones?
LisaB; "Om! What the hell is running down the side of your face?"
Om; "I think my cellphone just pooped on me..."
- #923
texasman1979
- 47
- 0
use ocean water in a new giant nuke plant to both make electricity and refill the ogallala aquifer.
use the spent fuel rods that can still maintain 2000+ degrees to help lengthen the life of the fuel.
make the plant a small high speed turbine and generator on a transmission.
use the electricity made for even greater steam production and several smaller generators.
with the new water in the aquifer plant corn and soybeans in desert areas increasing the green of the planet and a renewable fuel source for cars and trucks and planes.
the cost would be several trillion but the benefits would be incalculable.
use the spent fuel rods that can still maintain 2000+ degrees to help lengthen the life of the fuel.
make the plant a small high speed turbine and generator on a transmission.
use the electricity made for even greater steam production and several smaller generators.
with the new water in the aquifer plant corn and soybeans in desert areas increasing the green of the planet and a renewable fuel source for cars and trucks and planes.
the cost would be several trillion but the benefits would be incalculable.
- #924
Straw_Cat
- 48
- 0
Sure, no problem at all, Texasman. A simple minded fix with one small problem: Not one bit of all the uranium that has ever been refined has yet to be put into long term storage. And I mean long term. What are you doing for the next 45,000+ years?
Keep in mind that nuke plants spend almost as much down time refueling, etc, as they spend operating (a detail that energy companies would prefer you weren't aware of.) So, with diminishing demand for the plutonium the whole industry creates, the ~real~ cost of producing nuclear power is a lot higher than most people realize. In basic terms, it's not a cost-effective way to generate power or revenue (especially if the energy company has to pay for storing spent uranium, and highly radioactive power plant infrastructure when it comes time to dismantle those.)
When the day comes that the nuke companies have to pay the downstream costs from cradle to grave of their operations, rather than passing those onto the taxpayer, no one will invest in these things. Japan now seriously regrets having chosen the nuclear option, and a large percentage of their nation is going to suffer from the Fukushima disaster for many centuries.
The recent news from Japan tells us the Emperor's family is suffering health problems from radiation poisoning, brought about because the royal household gets it's food from royal farms in the region damaged by the reactor meltdowns.
And we who live outside of Japan are not immune from being affected by the radioactive contamination: the radioactivity of much of the fish (especially top predator species like tuna) in the Pacific ocean is getting closer (or exceeding) safe levels for consumption. This includes tuna, etc, caught off the west coast of North and South America.
For comparison, think about a Solar Spill: most of us would call that a Nice Day.
I am not in favour of growing corn and soy for use as fuel, especially in desert regions. Partly because most of the corn and almost all of the soy is now genetically modified, and partly because irrigating large parts of the average desert impacts a lot of species which are adapted to those arid climates. (However, The Sahara could be partly adapted for some types of agriculture... Hopefully, in ways that minimize the need for artificial fertilizers, especially petroleum-based ones.)
Say No to Nukes.
Keep in mind that nuke plants spend almost as much down time refueling, etc, as they spend operating (a detail that energy companies would prefer you weren't aware of.) So, with diminishing demand for the plutonium the whole industry creates, the ~real~ cost of producing nuclear power is a lot higher than most people realize. In basic terms, it's not a cost-effective way to generate power or revenue (especially if the energy company has to pay for storing spent uranium, and highly radioactive power plant infrastructure when it comes time to dismantle those.)
When the day comes that the nuke companies have to pay the downstream costs from cradle to grave of their operations, rather than passing those onto the taxpayer, no one will invest in these things. Japan now seriously regrets having chosen the nuclear option, and a large percentage of their nation is going to suffer from the Fukushima disaster for many centuries.
The recent news from Japan tells us the Emperor's family is suffering health problems from radiation poisoning, brought about because the royal household gets it's food from royal farms in the region damaged by the reactor meltdowns.
And we who live outside of Japan are not immune from being affected by the radioactive contamination: the radioactivity of much of the fish (especially top predator species like tuna) in the Pacific ocean is getting closer (or exceeding) safe levels for consumption. This includes tuna, etc, caught off the west coast of North and South America.
For comparison, think about a Solar Spill: most of us would call that a Nice Day.
I am not in favour of growing corn and soy for use as fuel, especially in desert regions. Partly because most of the corn and almost all of the soy is now genetically modified, and partly because irrigating large parts of the average desert impacts a lot of species which are adapted to those arid climates. (However, The Sahara could be partly adapted for some types of agriculture... Hopefully, in ways that minimize the need for artificial fertilizers, especially petroleum-based ones.)
Say No to Nukes.
- #925
texasman1979
- 47
- 0
The Sun is a good place for long term storage of unusable nuclear waste. Using the spent fuel rods to warm the water before it enters the chamber makes for a lessor amount of fuel needed and reduces down time, not to mention the size of the reactor would be smaller. All the electricity made from the plant would be for desalination purposes only. And which is better to modify, the desert which has a relatively small amount of life, or rain forest type areas with 100 times the life?
This is the only immediately actionable plan with current technology. All other plans require much more innovation to implement.
This is the only immediately actionable plan with current technology. All other plans require much more innovation to implement.
- #926
Straw_Cat
- 48
- 0
A mineable uranium deposit contains between 1 and 2% uranium. That leaves you with 98-99% waste to deal with, a lot of it radioactive or otherwise a major problem (thorium, radium, radon, lead, and so-on). So, for every 1 kilo of U238 and U235 you extract, you will have to place 98 or 99 kilos of waste in a rocket and blast it into space. In an un-reusable capsule that's strong enough to not break open if the rocket fails to reach space and become free of the Earth's gravity.
That's for every 100 kilos. Now consider that they mine tonnes of this stuff.
And that each launch into space requires a million or more pounds of fuel and produces a huge amount of acid rain to boot.
The best container for nuclear fuel is the one it comes in: leave it in the ore body.
(I had a key part to play in getting uranium mining banned forever in B.C. a few years ago...)
This spring, 100% of all new energy production in the US that came on-line was renewable energy: wind, solar, and so-forth. And the rate of this type of energy production is going up.
By the end of 2015, or early 2016, the cost of renewable energy production will have dropped below the cost of comparable non-renewable energy.
There is a need for more innovation, but for the most part, these technologies are already well advanced. As for storing the energy, the latest battery technology advances seem to have taken care of that, and they appear to be quite inexpensive at that.
One new technology I really would promote is the one called 'salt water greenhouses' (google for that). This uses airflow and sunlight to de-salinate sea water, and produces potable water for use in the greenhouses and nearby communities. The pumps (and possible condensing plates) can run off solar panels and/or wind turbines. :-) These have been built on the Arabian Peninsula and in Australia, and work just fine. If I had the $$, I'd build a series of them in Morocco and/or Baja California. Southwest Texas would be another great place for them, and these could turn the Big Bend area into viable farmland.
With careful planning, this could increase the biodiversity of those places, and still preserve local species.
That's for every 100 kilos. Now consider that they mine tonnes of this stuff.
And that each launch into space requires a million or more pounds of fuel and produces a huge amount of acid rain to boot.
The best container for nuclear fuel is the one it comes in: leave it in the ore body.
(I had a key part to play in getting uranium mining banned forever in B.C. a few years ago...)
This spring, 100% of all new energy production in the US that came on-line was renewable energy: wind, solar, and so-forth. And the rate of this type of energy production is going up.
By the end of 2015, or early 2016, the cost of renewable energy production will have dropped below the cost of comparable non-renewable energy.
There is a need for more innovation, but for the most part, these technologies are already well advanced. As for storing the energy, the latest battery technology advances seem to have taken care of that, and they appear to be quite inexpensive at that.
One new technology I really would promote is the one called 'salt water greenhouses' (google for that). This uses airflow and sunlight to de-salinate sea water, and produces potable water for use in the greenhouses and nearby communities. The pumps (and possible condensing plates) can run off solar panels and/or wind turbines. :-) These have been built on the Arabian Peninsula and in Australia, and work just fine. If I had the $$, I'd build a series of them in Morocco and/or Baja California. Southwest Texas would be another great place for them, and these could turn the Big Bend area into viable farmland.
With careful planning, this could increase the biodiversity of those places, and still preserve local species.
- #927
Straw_Cat
- 48
- 0
Seawater, or salt water, greenhouse links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse
Quote: "The technology was introduced by British inventor Charlie Paton in the early 1990s and is being developed by his UK company Seawater Greenhouse Ltd."
http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/02/18/seawater-greenhouses-produce-tomatoes-in-the-desert/
And search for seawater greenhouse on YouTube for some videos, if interested.
If you've ever been around an old-fashioned swamp cooler, you'll understand how these work to desalinate the seawater. I think this is a brilliant technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse
Quote: "The technology was introduced by British inventor Charlie Paton in the early 1990s and is being developed by his UK company Seawater Greenhouse Ltd."
http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/02/18/seawater-greenhouses-produce-tomatoes-in-the-desert/
And search for seawater greenhouse on YouTube for some videos, if interested.
If you've ever been around an old-fashioned swamp cooler, you'll understand how these work to desalinate the seawater. I think this is a brilliant technology.
- #928
texasman1979
- 47
- 0
build an actual space plane.
wind, solar, etc. is too inconsistent for a mass desalination process.
the green houses would have to be the size of a medium size state to equal the desalination capability of electricity.
its far too easy, just too many people concerned with cost and profit.
wind, solar, etc. is too inconsistent for a mass desalination process.
the green houses would have to be the size of a medium size state to equal the desalination capability of electricity.
its far too easy, just too many people concerned with cost and profit.
- #929
gmax137
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
- 3,019
- 3,321
Anyone else think this thread has just about run its course?
- #930
texasman1979
- 47
- 0
Until something is actually done to improve the environment, this thread will not have ran its course.
I saw the post and decided to add my little tidbit.
I have posted on facebook a number of things that would help.
Desalinate Gulf of Mexico water to refill the aquifer. Turn the Sahara green with a living renewable alternative to oil for ground transportation using desalinated Mediterranean water. My little 17 horse Yanmar tractor is more than strong enough to turn more then 30 120 amp alternators. The fueled motor does not have to be on a direct drive to a generator. You can route the power through a drive train/transmission. Design them for speed rather than low end torque.
Electricity is so easy to generate it is ridiculous and with that electricity comes a million other things that can actually help this planet.
The reason the things above are not done is not because they are impossible, its because there is no direct way to profit from it. What they don't realize is that there is trillions to be made indirectly.
The only thing necessary to totally fix our energy crisis is to separate human lives from profit. As long as there is a "cost of living" there is only a matter of time till the cost outweighs the life. Then it is over for us all.
Step one: Make human life itself valuable.
I saw the post and decided to add my little tidbit.
I have posted on facebook a number of things that would help.
Desalinate Gulf of Mexico water to refill the aquifer. Turn the Sahara green with a living renewable alternative to oil for ground transportation using desalinated Mediterranean water. My little 17 horse Yanmar tractor is more than strong enough to turn more then 30 120 amp alternators. The fueled motor does not have to be on a direct drive to a generator. You can route the power through a drive train/transmission. Design them for speed rather than low end torque.
Electricity is so easy to generate it is ridiculous and with that electricity comes a million other things that can actually help this planet.
The reason the things above are not done is not because they are impossible, its because there is no direct way to profit from it. What they don't realize is that there is trillions to be made indirectly.
The only thing necessary to totally fix our energy crisis is to separate human lives from profit. As long as there is a "cost of living" there is only a matter of time till the cost outweighs the life. Then it is over for us all.
Step one: Make human life itself valuable.
- #931
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,424
- 3,115
gmax137 said:
No.
When this thread shuts down, I will resign from PF.
Seriously.
- #932
gmax137
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
- 3,019
- 3,321
OmCheeto said:No.
When this thread shuts down, I will resign from PF.
Seriously.
I like this thread too, but it needs some serious fact checking. Here's just a few recent examples:
Straw_Cat said:
No they don't spend half their time shutdown. The US average capacity factor is near 90% since 2000. see http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center...lear-Power-Plants/US-Nuclear-Capacity-Factors
Don't believe NEI? ask anyone who works at the nuke plants.
What? the plutonium produced in the commercial power plant cores has never left the plant sites. It is still contained within the spent fuel rods in the pools or in the dry casks. Plus, there is no market for plutonium, the government of the US and Russia have tons of the stuff and they'd like to get rid of it. Plus, the plutonium produced in commercial cores is worthless for WMDs since the long burnup (necessary for economic power production) ensures excessive amounts of Pu-240 in addition to the Pu-239.
The nuclear power plants are the only electric generation facilities that fund their own eventual decommissioning. They also pay the government (at 0.1 cents/kw-hr) for the eventual disposal of the spent fuel. They don't get a free pass on their waste products. Compare that to the fossil generators: they use our atmosphere as their dump site at no cost to themselves.
A lot of nonsense.
texasman1979 said:
Noboby would consider this. How about a calculation of the electric generation (MW-hr) vs. the cost to orbit the spent fuel? Plus, the spent fuel is perfect fuel for the more advanced reactor types; sending it into the sun would be foolish.
The heat produced in the spent fuel is a tiny fraction of the operating power after a few weeks. Plus, using it as a pre-heater would require keeping the spent assemblies hotter then the reactor coolant (500 - 600 F) or hotter than the feedwater (300 - 400 F). Much better to keep them in the pool (~100 F).
texasman1979 said:
I'm not sure if this is supposed to make the "send the spent fuel to the sun" more reasonable. It doesn't, because it doesn't change the energy required to lift the material and it doesn't change the fact that the material is far too valuable as an energy source to throw it away
I don't have time to personally debunk everything in this thread; and I don't mean to pick on just these two contributors. It just seems like the meaty, thoughtful contributions are getting thinner and thinner.
- #933
texasman1979
- 47
- 0
I wished i had the technical jargon that went with the things I've said. It sucks having what I have in my brain and not being able to express it in a manner where others can readily understand. Plutonium is absolutely worthless, has been and always will be. All of nuclear technology is childs play. Current generator technology is archaic at best. The mathematics behind magnetic fields and conducting materials is skewed based on the technology currently existing.
Remember this:
We currently get less than 1% of the electricity possible from mechanical energy with humanities finest and most efficient generator. The basic generator design has changed very little since Edison and Tesla. Einsteins relativity is only partially correct. Speed is what will change things. Millions of RPM's.
How many volts and amps can I get from a generator powered by a 6 volt DC motor from an erector set? :)
Remember this:
We currently get less than 1% of the electricity possible from mechanical energy with humanities finest and most efficient generator. The basic generator design has changed very little since Edison and Tesla. Einsteins relativity is only partially correct. Speed is what will change things. Millions of RPM's.
How many volts and amps can I get from a generator powered by a 6 volt DC motor from an erector set? :)
- #934
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,424
- 3,115
gmax137 said:
You actually read those? When someone posts something really long, and the first sentence is obviously wrong, I don't bother finishing the post. If I notice a person doing this too many times, I add them to my ignore list. I've no time for jabberwockies.
One thing I do from time to time, is go back and review post #2, and see how we've progressed.
Of course, lots of things have changed in the last 9 years. Solar panel prices have done nothing but come down.
Unfortunately, the installation costs are still fairly high.
From this image:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NRELsolarcostchart-555x216.jpg
It appears that installation is about $5.00 per Watt.
Of course, one trend I would like to see continue, is the rise of the plug-in hybrid:
Imagine if everyone drove a Volt type vehicle:
And for those who are about to whine about Leno using coal generated grid electricity, I have acquaintances who charge their electric cars, with their roof mounted solar panels, IN OREGON!
The blue section no less...
[PLAIN]http://solarcellcentral.com/images/usa_insolation_map.jpg[/CENTER]
And they are not millionaires.
And don't get me started on the fact that they are dumping wind farm energy, because the infrastructure doesn't exist to export the energy... stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid...
And they are not millionaires.
And don't get me started on the fact that they are dumping wind farm energy, because the infrastructure doesn't exist to export the energy... stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid...
Last edited by a moderator:
- #935
gmax137
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
- 3,019
- 3,321
OmCheeto said:
here where I work, we use that name for guys who monopolize the conversation on our lunchtime walks
And thanks for the solar update; that's the kind of info this thread needs.
- #936
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,424
- 3,115
gmax137 said:
here where I work, we use that name for guys who monopolize the conversation on our lunchtime walks
And thanks for the solar update; that's the kind of info this thread needs.
Also known as "Mansplainers".
Being that I was at one time extensively trained in hydraulics, electric motors, and batteries, I still have a bit of knowledge about how such things interact.
I was at the beach two weekends ago, and was trying to diagnose why my friends photovoltaic powered water pumping system didn't work. Not only did he not have a clue what he was doing, but another acquaintance kept butting in with his mansplanation of why nothing worked. It was very frustrating for me, as the mansplainer was so good at it, that my friend with the failed pumping system kept listening to him, rather than my somewhat obtuse; "It's complicated"
Their constant jibber jabber made it almost impossible for me to think.
It wasn't until after everything had been put away was I able to collect my thoughts, and determine what actually was wrong with his system.
He had two different sets of pumping systems. One was a 24 volt(maybe), land based model, which from the size of the motor, I estimated was rated around 2 hp. The other system was a 12 volt(which he claimed were rated at 24vdc) pair of 1100 gph bilge pumps, hydraulically hooked up in parallel. His solar panels, which I had never taken a close look at, and had always assumed were 250 watt panels, turned out to be 80 watt panels. Obviously, the 160 watt source was no match for the 1500 watt demand of the land based model. And the dual bilge pump system, which I never did determine how they were wired electrically, barely pumped anything at all.
Anyways, Cal, the owner of the failed pumping system, disappeared. Ray, the mansplainer, also disappeared, and I was able to hook up my 3 bilge pumps, 3 x 50 watt solar panels, 3 x 5 gallon buckets, 300 feet of garden hose, and successfully water down the volleyball courts, and made a bunch of people, a bit more comfortable. Which I believe, is what engineering is all about.
- #937
johnbbahm
- 305
- 33
Much of the issue is there is almost no way to store surplus energy, you ether use it when it is there,
or it turns into waste heat.
Some of the new technology being developed in Germany and by the US NAVY could create
hydrocarbon fuel as a way of storing the energy.
Often in Science and Engineering, Nature shows us a good way of doing things,
Storing energy in the form of hydrocarbons looks to have a lot of advantages.
- #938
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,424
- 3,115
We've actually gone over that. I'm sorry this is such a long thread. It's all Russ's fault.johnbbahm said:
Do you have a link? Storing energy is a big problem of mine.
Agreed.
- #939
- 23,532
- 10,890
gmax137 said:
As tempting as that is (J/KOmCheeto said:No.
When this thread shuts down, I will resign from PF.
Seriously.
), you're definitely right that it hasn't. This is going to be a serious issue for generations unless that Italian guy gets his pesky energy multiplier working. The difficulty in moderating a thread like this comes from its breadth and the time between significant discussions. We'll get a lot of one-shot posters, many of which are uninformed or even crackpots. I don't want to go deleting every such post or closing the thread, thereby stifling a lot of discussion. I'd rather err on the side of educating. So I think we've ended up with somewhat lower quality than we'd all prefer. And that's on me, of course; my thread, my subforum. But I'll still ask for help from vigilant regulars; report posts you think are bad and/or respond with corrections. Speaking of educating...
- #940
- 23,532
- 10,890
Since the more radioactive it is, the more usable it is, what's left when we use what we can is significantly less radioactive than when first dug out of the ground. There's no reason therefore not to put it back where we found it, unless we can make better use of it (like bullets and boat keels). It's really only the high level waste (post-reactor) that is more problematic.Straw_Cat said:
A shame that that's how it ends up working. A lot of damage has been done and the tide is only now starting to turn.
Nonsense (or at best highly misleading). For the first half of 2013, it was 25% renewable, with the lions share being natural gas:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/renewables-provide-25-of-new-electrical-generating-capacity-in-first-half-2013
One looming issue with our electrical production is the costs for pollution control being added to coal. Natural gas so far has done reasonably well in picking-up the slack, but that's going to need to be accelerated to avoid supply problems.
Typically, such analysis is done on a cost per watt basis, ignoring the extremely low capacity factor of renewables. For peaking plants only (for which solar can be good) that may be ok, but again the lions share of our power can't be provided by solar or wind. In other words, if you shut down a coal plant, you can't replace it with a solar plant or wind plant, even at a 6:1 ratio (6 watts of solar added to replace 1 watt of coal to produce the same kWh).
Please note: As I said in the previous post, I'm leaning toward educating rather than censoring, but the leash is pretty short. Please take more care to post true facts, don't post about what you don't know and post sources.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #941
- 23,532
- 10,890
That isn't true. Today's generators are well over 90% efficient.texasman1979 said:
- #942
- 23,532
- 10,890
I appreciate that and agree that much has changed. And I've been thinking of writing a follow-up (or did I already? Can't find one). Too bad you can't double-sticky, though I suppose I can edit the OP and link it there.OmCheeto said:
One obvious thing I didn't see coming was fracking and the resulting natural gas explosion (the good kind) and death of Peak Oil.
- #943
OmCheeto
Gold Member
- 2,424
- 3,115
russ_watters said:As tempting as that is (J/K
Speaking of educating...
The most horrific statement I saw, once I found the "Ignore" function, was made by LisaB. She said Mentors could not "ignore" people.
I really feel for you kids.
- #944
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
- 22,199
- 6,880
MidAmerica Energy, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffett), invests heavily in wind and solar.
Here's What Warren Buffett Thinks About Renewable Energy
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...mes-to-renewable-energy-buffetts-not-blo.aspx
MidAmerica did look at nuclear but decided not to go that route.
Here's What Warren Buffett Thinks About Renewable Energy
http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...mes-to-renewable-energy-buffetts-not-blo.aspx
Wind turbine manufacturing is a cyclical business
MidAmerica did look at nuclear but decided not to go that route.
- #945
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2023 Award
- 22,199
- 6,880
Cyclical nature of wind power and impact on other generation.
U.K. Wind Turbines Generate Record Power as Gas-Fed Plants Halt
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...rate-record-power-as-gas-fed-plants-halt.html
In the US, some nuclear plants would be forced to reduce power in order to accommodate wind generation on their grid.
U.K. Wind Turbines Generate Record Power as Gas-Fed Plants Halt
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...rate-record-power-as-gas-fed-plants-halt.html
In the US, some nuclear plants would be forced to reduce power in order to accommodate wind generation on their grid.