| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
It is my opinion that the only way to solve the energy crisis is to exploit the powers of the atom. ( and solar, preferably satellite based, and Fusion, etc. ) I'll not go into the politics of Climate change here, except to say there is no need at all to invoke that theory to know that eventually the fossil fuels, especially the easy, cheap to get liquid stuff, will just get more expensive and less plentiful. We're going to run out of a finite resource. Congress passed bills years ago to invest in a recycling infrastructure although they did not let it happen. That is, in a twisted way, a good thing, because we can now invest in the latest technologies and be more efficient & safer than even France. New technology can burn up previously "nasty" materials and produce power while doing it. With known reserves of fissionable ores we have quite a lot of time to solve the problems of what to burn next. Perhaps Fusion. As far as reactor tech goes, I've been to the former squash court where the first man made fission reactor was made. ( it's not there anymore ) I've seen the blue glow of Cherenkov radiation in pools of purest water with fuel rods wasting away, awaiting their recycling. Forget Chernobyl, that was a primitive ( but huge ) design that was brute force engineered to make power. Current tech is pebble bed reactors that encase a flake of uranium in a stainless steel "marble". You build a nice steel ( assume stainless ) can with hollow tubes through it for the control rods, and fill it full of pebbles. Fill with Helium, and pipe into a heat exchanger to boil water. Proper design prevents overheating & leaks. Now build several hundred of them. We're going to need them to recharge all the electric cars. Also change over most of the existing fossil fuel power plant systems to nuclear to free up natural gas for vehicles & home heating, coal for chemical processes, etc. That will eliminate our need for foreign oil, and drastically cut CO2 emissions. Just in case that IS important. Safe, clean nuclear power. It sucks that in a Universe with terrorists and madmen that we are going to have to continue to have good security on the radioactives & hazardous materials. But we already should. Opinions? | ||
| Slaughter |
Yep | ||
| Tom_b |
I agree safe clean nuclear power plants are the way!! I just wonder how come so many of the oil producing(terrorist muslim suporters) countries are that way when we are not. The phobia in the US against nuclear power is almost ridiculous. When the cost to the enviroment and build versus a coal fired plant comes into play it almo0st makes one wonder if their is a oil company or coal comnpany conspiracy  | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Build smaller fuel efficient cars (that last a long time), and houses. Have less kids. Plant trees, and cut down less of the ones we have. Plan community and city layouts better. Make mass transit desirable, viable, and palatable. Give up your need for ripe peaches in winter, and buy locally grown produce and meats. Buy less trinkets. My head hurts. | ||
| Aesquire |
Check for stroke. Make do with less is, of course, a laudable goal. I'm a cheap &*^**( I insulate, buy energy star appliances, ( looking to replace the window AC with a MORE efficient split system ) and have a "summer living room" in the basement to take advantage of geothermal. ( hot rock, cold rock... it's thermal.) I am saving for a more efficient car ( had to pass on a Diesel Jetta...too much debt ) etc. etc. Won't fix the problem. If you want electric cars, you need to increase the amount of power generated. It's really simple. We Use X ( total watt/hours ) fossil fuels to move our cars. ( skip trucks, trains, planes, they are not so easy to make electric ) We have Y ( total watt/hours ) generated electrical capacity. ( Not a lot of excess. ) If you want to eliminate the fossil fuels, and go electric, you then need X+Y+Z generated electrical capacity. ( Z being line losses. Gasoline does not get used up as fast in a pipeline as juice does down a wire ) So if you don't want more electrical power, you better give up way more than a few trinkets. ( I'm cool with canned peaches, but why do you hate those in distant land we support with our money to buy their crops?  ) X is mucking huge. There is no plan I know of to make up that much power in the electric infrastructure. Even if you figure in closing most of the factories, ( shipping our jobs overseas ) massive depression, ( can't afford to buy energy ) and massive taxes ( politics aside, have you seen what they want to charge you? what they charge you already?) to reduce energy consumption, we still need more electricity to meet our goals of lower fossil fuel use & pollution. China's not going to. | ||
| Hanginout |
We need one of http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4273 386.html in every suburb/town. | ||
| Hootowl |
"eventually the fossil fuels, especially the easy, cheap to get liquid stuff, will just get more expensive and less plentiful. We're going to run out of a finite resource." Absolutely. I'm all for "green" stuff, but not for religious/political reasons. Having a viable alternative to a finite resource just makes sense. | ||
| Crackhead |
it looks like an adaptation of the submarine nuke plants.  I wounder how quick these plants can throttle up and down to meet demand? | ||
| Strokizator |
I just wonder how come so many of the oil producing(terrorist muslim supporters) countries are that way when we are not. That's because they don't know that Jane Fonda almost died when a nuclear power plant just outside Los Angeles came close to a melt-down in 1979 . I'm amazed that people will come out against things like nuke power, plant growth regulators (Meryl Streep testified before congress about the dangers of alar) and such, based upon some stupid hollywood script. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Have less kids Of course, people are the scourge of the Earth, no ??? | ||
| Jstfrfun |
The west coast is dotted with empty shells which were supposed to be nuke power plants, but were terminated because of fantasy films like Jane's. All the way up to Washington state they sit waiting for there insides to be completed and brought on line. Shows what "pubic opinion" can do. | ||
| Mortarmanmike120 |
Does anybody have any idea what the maximum sustained power output could be if we went nuclear? (assuming politcals and greenies weren't an issue) By that I mean what would be the limiting factor to how much energy could be produced. Amount of fissionable material? Is there enough of the fissionable material to power our current energy demands if fossil fuels just disappeared tomorrow? Absolutely. I'm all for "green" stuff, but not for religious/political reasons. Having a viable alternative to a finite resource just makes sense. Agreed. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
According to Wiki, there is enough U-235, used in current light water reactors, to last a century but there is enough U-238, used in breeder reactors, to last 5 billion years. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
This sounds better... Fusion power advocates commonly propose the use of deuterium, or tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also lithium and boron. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years.[61] Although this process has yet to be realized, many experts and civilians alike believe fusion to be a promising future energy source due to the short lived radioactivity of the produced waste, its low carbon emissions, and its prospective power output. | ||
| Aesquire |
Fusion does sound better. I'll take it. What's the web site so I can buy a Fusion plant for my back yard that runs on Hydrogen? Ok, how about Boron-proton? Can't order one? Tritium-de? Nope? I am optimistic that we WILL have fusion soon. The experiments of Dr. Bussard show that we CAN do break even +. Someone just has to build a pilot plant at FULL scale. Cost estimate? $200 million. Since we are giving more than that to terrorist group Hamas, I have doubts that that kind of money will be spent actually solving a problem. I'm pessimistic about our politicians. If I won the powerball uber lotto & had $400 million, I'd invest that in Fusion, and become the next Bill Gates or be broke & tired. But we'd at least know that electrostatic confinement works or not. You can do Tokamaks if you like with your money, and someone else can build "Shiva" style laser rigs like we had in Rochester. In any event, we need to transition to technologies I can't order with a phone call to GE or it's Swiss counterpart, by using tech that exists today. (Message edited by aesquire on June 18, 2009) | ||
| 86129squids |
McFly!! | ||
| Crackhead |
hahaha Mr. Fusion | ||
| Wolfridgerider |
we be gett'n one.... http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/406 2/469337.html?1245326424 | ||
| Midknyte |
We need Nukes...  You sure 'bout that? "Workers excavating radioactive contamination at the Hanford Site in Washington — which was part of the Manhattan Project — have been finding thousands of radioactive wasp nests, spawning a blizzard of atomic stingers..." http://io9.com/5292744/radioactive-wasps-swarm-out -of-former-nuclear-test-site | ||
| Kilroy |
Really shouldn't compare a DOD site with a commercial nuclear power generating station - 2 completely different animals.. | ||
| Hootowl |
Yes, Hanford was a weapons grade uranium/plutonium factory which operated for years without any sort of environmental controls. Their solution to waste disposal was the homeowner equivalent of pouring used motor oil out in the back yard. Can't compare it to a modern power station. | ||
| Gohot |
Seems that Chernobyl learned the hard way what NOT to do. Yea its dangerous and there are alternatives such as wave powered generators, but then you'd have the coastal residents pitching a bitch. Well if you want energy, someone's going to get their toes steped on, be it wind, atomic, wave or solar. I say make it and piss on the gripes. Too many selfish self consumed people doing the NIMBY thing at the expence of the rest of us. Certain areas should be zoned for energy generation and domaciles or factories not allowed, just energy. Once a grid was in place and powering and maintained, the need for nuclier power would be diminished along with the inherant dangers. There are certain areas that are national resorces that should be just that, and off limits to urban sprawl,and mandated for power generation exclusivly. To tell you the truth I'm 57 and on the downhill now, and glad I wont have to be around in the next 30-40 years when it really goes to crap. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
and glad I wont have to be around in the next 30-40 years when it really goes to crap. I used to say that but at the speed we are going I might still be here. | ||
| Aesquire |
It's like the folk who tell me, "If there ever is a nucular war, I don't want to live through it". My reply is always, "Ok, can I have your stuff? Buy a Diesel 4x4 first, & leave the keys where I can find them, thanks" I was really hoping that I could miss the United States going all fascist, or giant corporations dominating the planet like in "Rollerball" ( the original, not the horrid remake ) or a cyberpunk RPG. Too bad, so sad, I lived too long. After decades of propaganda ( some paid for by the Soviet Union, to weaken the western world....don't believe me? Hanoi Jane Fonda. ) telling us that nuclear powerplants would explode and kill us all, it's going to be a tough road to actually build safe clean plants. More importantly, the recycling facilities to make it economical & clean. I mean, PETA is mad that Obama killed a fly. I've long known that the scariest folk are the radical greenies. If anyone is going to release a "Satan Bug" ( see IMDB for review ) its either going to be radical islamic nuts, ( because God will protect them ) or, far more likely, IMO, radical eco-freaks who watched some show about how great the Earth will be after mankind dies off. | ||
| Nillaice |
all i have to say is: i like buell motorcycles. | ||
| Buellboiler |
Nuclear power is the logical solution. However Obama has killed the nuclear budget, even though he promised to include nuclear during his campaign. We are on the way of huge taxation in the form of Cap & Trade instead of intelligently increasing our power generation capability with domestic nuclear sources. One bright spot is that we are purchasing formerly nuclear weapon grade uranium from the Soviet block nations as a method of helping them to remove weapons *and* make money doing it. This provides an alternative to selling weapon grade material to the black markets. | ||
| Riding_tall |
all i have to say is: i like buell motorcycles.  | ||
| Gregtonn |
...skip trucks, trains, planes, they are not so easy to make electric... Trains have been hybrid diesel/electric since they switched from steam. With proper modifications that might be an energy efficient alternative for trucks. G | ||
| Buellboiler |
City trucks are more likely to go hybrid diesel/hydraulic similar to the UPS fleet now. | ||
| Skinstains |
Can we use small nukes to celebrate the 4th of July ? If so I'll take a dozen or two. |
