Transition to a Nuclear/Hydrogen Energy System

World Nuclear Association ^ | 2002 | Drs. Leon Walters, David Wade, and David Lewis

[The Shootist]

I'm not going to write 5496 words on the subject but I do have this to say.

Nuclear is a short-term and ultimately messy power source.

We should invest in low cost to orbit launch technologies and build Solar Power Stations in Earth orbit. We have the technology to do this NOW. It is only a matter of engineering.

Beam the power down to receivers via microwaves and have all the non-polluting electricity we will ever need.

[Fish out of Water]

bump

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Interesting article, thanks for posting it!

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[Rebel_Ace]

The "greenies" have the nuclear fission reactor industry in a stranglehold, and they have already won the hearts (not the minds) of the general public.

If we want to be able to kiss off dependence upon foreign fuel sources, we must fully exploit our own coal reserves, our nuclear fission capabilities as well as push for the development of commercial fusion reactors.

Once controlled nuclear fusion is a reality, then we can truly move to a "hydrogen based" economy.

[AdamSelene235]

The "greenies" have the nuclear fission reactor industry in a stranglehold, and they have already won the hearts (not the minds) of the general public.

It doesn't need to be popular just legal. How anyone can accept coal but object to fission is beyond me.

Once controlled nuclear fusion is a reality, then we can truly move to a "hydrogen based" economy.

Fission will do just fine. Creating a transportable fuel is the trick.

[hinckley buzzard]

Worth noting, this advertisement was produced and paid for by the nuclear energy industry, not an impartial organization.

For example, the information about natural gas processing as just changing the location of the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, is false.

Looks like the nuclear power industry still can't just be honest and trust the public with the virtues of nuclear power for what they are. I'm pro-nuke, but I wish they'd quit lying when they don't even have to--these PR abortions remind me of clinton.

[maro]

As a boy, I read a book that espoused the same strategy. Several years ago, my law firm employed a physics Ph.D. as a patent lawyer. I asked him whether this microwave-beaming would work; he snorted "no." Any other physicists out there who care to explain yea or nay on this idea?

[NilesJo]

For example, the information about natural gas processing as just changing the location of the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, is false.

Well, don't just leave us hanging, explain why its false. Are you saying that reforming methane partitions the carbon into a non-releasable form?

[NilesJo]

"Once controlled nuclear fusion is a reality, then we can truly move to a "hydrogen based" economy."

And just when will that be? I work for a company that's developing fusion energy and for the last twenty years its always been twenty years away. I don't expect that to change for quite a long time.

[NilesJo]

"we must fully exploit our own coal reserves..."

Energy from a coal plant that totally pays for the cost of it's fuel, emissions control and waste cleanup will cost more than nuclear. It will also put out much more CO2 than gas or oil (higher carbon concentration) and will emit more radioactivity into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant.

[AdamSelene235]

As a boy, I read a book that espoused the same strategy. Several years ago, my law firm employed a physics Ph.D. as a patent lawyer. I asked him whether this microwave-beaming would work; he snorted "no." Any other physicists out there who care to explain yea or nay on this idea?

It could be done. Going to space is expensive. Solar energy isn't particularly dense (although its a bit more viable in space than on the ground).

Possible, yes. Cost effective, only if you're smokin the good stuff.

Fission works and is cost effective (especially when you don't regulate it to death). France is 80% nuclear.

The problem is the replacement of fossil fuels. Hydrogen is about 7 times less dense than gasoline. There should also be a way to go from nuke to ethanol. Energy, as Blake says, is eternal delight. The $10,000 question is can it be done in a cost effective manner?

[AdamSelene235]

Energy from a coal plant that totally pays for the cost of it's fuel, emissions control and waste cleanup will cost more than nuclear. It will also put out much more CO2 than gas or oil (higher carbon concentration) and will emit more radioactivity into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant.

Additionally, there are ppm of uranium, thorium and halfnium in coal. If you burn a billion tons of coal (and we do), you throw thousands of tons of radioactive waste into the atmosphere.

Incidentally, there is more energy in the trace radioactive materials in coal, than there is in the coal itself.

So we have a choice between burying (or in the case of a breeder recycling waste into fuel) radioactive waste or breathing it. And we have chosen to breathe radioactive waste rather than bury or recycle it

Thank you, environmentalists.

[Cicero]

Fusion is a long way off, if it's possible at all. And so are all the alternatives. Nuclear power is the only practical way out of our energy dependence.

But the public has been brainwashed on this issue for twenty years. It would be an enormous fight to change the perception, because the liberal press would be certain to see it as an opportunity to kill the conservative movement.

Yes, this is the only answer. Already the French get 70% of their power from nuclear plants. But the leftist politicians and the media will probably never let it happen.

[Rebel_Ace]

I did not mean to imply that Hydrogen Fusion reactors were "just around the corner". The technical hurdles are indeed staggering. I am simply stating that it needs to be a goal, since it offers the multiple advantages of nearly limitless energy from ordinary water, very little in the way of toxic residue, and the chance to tell all the third world dictators with oil wells to "shove it".

As far as our own U.S. coal reserves...

Is coal a fairly dirty power source? It sure can be, look at how it is used in China. There are cleaner and more efficient ways to burn and process it. It will still release scads of junk in the air, though. My point here is that it's OURS, on OUR soil, under OUR control, and we need to exercise the leverage that gives us, if for nothing else, the short term while other technologies are developed and deployed.

[AdamSelene235]

I did not mean to imply that Hydrogen Fusion reactors were "just around the corner". The technical hurdles are indeed staggering. I am simply stating that it needs to be a goal, since it offers the multiple advantages of nearly limitless energy from ordinary water, very little in the way of toxic residue, and the chance to tell all the third world dictators with oil wells to "shove it".

Why are you so fixated on fusion? Fission is here and it works fine.

I've worked on DOE fusion projects and they have *nothing* to do with building power plants. They just spin it to the public that way.

[AdamSelene235]

But the public has been brainwashed on this issue for twenty years. It would be an enormous fight to change the perception, because the liberal press would be certain to see it as an opportunity to kill the conservative movement.

They don't like fission but they want cheap energy.

They don't like oil but they'll use it despite their beliefs.

They don't like our involvement in the Middle East but they have sabotaged all alternatives.

[Boiler Plate]

Shootist,

How much energy do think can be transmitted through radio signal? Have you actually asked any antenna designers if this can done?

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Boiler Plate]

Maro,

I used to work for COMSAT and we built antennas all over the world. There are numerous problems with transmitting anything let alone high power signals. First of all the orbitting power station will have to be in geosynchronous orbit and the airspace from the satellite to the earthstation would have to be closely gaurded as it would vaporize anything that passed through. There will be tremendous losses in the atmosphere and heat all the moisture in the air the beam passes through. It would be next to impossible to focus the beam with a foot print much smaller than a city the size of Indianapolis. The earthstation would have to be very remote in which case terrestrial transmission losses would be very high. The radio signal harmonics from a signal with the same power as a nuke plant would make all other radio communication impossible for hundreds of miles and finally the posibility of the sattelite malfunctioning, becoming disoriented and sending a death ray marching across the country may be somewhat worse than just about any nuke accident that could ever happen.

In short I don't really think it is good idea. Maybe we ought to stick with nukes.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[calenel]

"There will be tremendous losses in the atmosphere and heat all the moisture in the air the beam passes through."

And then Global Warming wouldn't just be a boogey-man.

At a 50% loss (HA!) we would effectively be doubling the amount of waste heat dumped into the environment, and it would also require twice the area of solar panels to produce the required energy.