Transition to a Nuclear/Hydrogen Energy System

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

[Centurion2000]

bump

[Boiler Plate]

Calenel,

The atmospheric losses would not be in double digits, however even 2% loss of a gigawatt (the size of most nuke plants) would be 20 megawatts. The real danger is a decent size cloud could be very troublesome. Essential microwave is what you have on your kitchen counter and heats your food by radiating energy into the moisture or water in your food. Thats why a corningware plate doesn't heat up but the food does. Most likely the power transmission woul have to be interrupted every time a cloud passes by.

What you have then is the same thing we now have with wind power. Wind power actually uses more power than it creates simply because it is so unreliable and unsteady. This unsteadiness causes ripples in the overall grid that has to be overcome by yet more power genration.

The best answer to the energy crises is actually LED lights and other sustainable building design elements. The LEDs use a third less power than flourescent and last for about ten years. The reduction in the heat losses in the lighting will reduce AC costs so overall the average office building will see a 15 to 30 percent reduction in electricity usage. When you take all the office buildings across the US it would come out to be a lot more than all the generation we could get from orbiting space stations. BTW did I mention how big a one gigawatt transmiter would be? As a rough guess I'd say about the same size as a US navy destroyer. That's a lot of space shuttle flights.

I don't think this idea is going to happen in our lifetime.

Regards,
Boiler Plate

[NilesJo]

I am simply stating that [fusion] 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".

I agree that fusion should be a goal but keep your time expectation realistic (30-50 years) and have a backup plan in the event it never comes to commercial fruition which is a very real possibility. Incidentally currently envisioned fusion schemes do produce significant toxic wastes as a result of the need to frequently replace the plasma chamber blanket which is highly activated by the intense neutron radiation.

We certainly do agree that this country MUST develop independent and practical energy sources for strategic reasons. However I believe, based on facts and figures, that the ONLY practical and reliable energy technology in todays world that can lead to strategic independence with acceptable environmental impact and safety is new generation nuclear fission reactors. Even starting today it will take 10 years minimum to license and construct new reactors that can begin to contribute to the goal of independence. The first such reactors will merely replace the older reactors that will be shut down and taken out of service, hence no net gain for many years.

[NilesJo]

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.

Nuclear energy has proven to be safer, far cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels. It holds out the promise of strategic energy independence. It is the single developed source today that can solve our eventual energy crisis within a reasonable time frame.

So, if the Liberals and Greens still oppose nuclear energy, they are operating from an agenda that is not focused on a real solution to these real problems but rather one that is anti-capitalism, anti-corporation and anti-free market. They understand that an energy crisis has the potential to create an economic and political crisis in this country. This in turn will undermine the public confidence and produce political instability - the opening that the socialists hope for in order that a desperate citizenry might embrace their anti-capitalist alternative.

[John Jamieson]

YES!

[AdamSelene235]

Glad you liked my post....

[farmfriend]

I hate these long ones. I can never finish reading them. OK, no surprise there.

[this_ol_patriot]

You guys are the experts, what about biomass, pros and cons?

From what I read it has a closed carbon cycle and may actually sequester additional carbon in roots for certain perennial crops. Also what about methane from different sources like landfills and wastewater treatment?

Is this all BS or just not doable because of cost? It a good thought that we could grow and poop some of our own energy sources.

Anybody?

[Boiler Plate]

My wife asked me about the Hydrogen Initiative after President Bush's SOTU speech and I told about an article Jay Leno (Yes that Jay Leno, he is a true automotive nut and expert) wrote a couple of months ago on the subject of Alternative Fuels. The bottom line is we already have the alternative fuel and the distribution system for it. Check out the Audi A2 TDI. This car, which seats 5, goes close to 80 miles a gallon. It is also on the road and being sold today, just not in the US. Would I buy one? Yes. Would everyone buy one? No. However the point is, the high efficiency cars already exist and the fuel can be sourced from something other than a oil field as this car can run on bio-diesel.

Now onto to hydrogen. It is a pain the butt to handle, distribute and store. Furthermore unless you are planing to burn pure oxygen with it in lieu of air your are still going to get a lot of the same pollutants we presently get. Gasoline is a hydrocarbon and the theoretical byproduct of it's combution is theoretically Water and Carbon DiOxide. However since air (which is mostly Nitrogen and lots of gases other than oxygen)is used as the oxidizing agent we have all kinds of byproducts mostly Nitrous Oxides (NOx).

So it is a swell idea but I seriously doubt anything will happen in the next couple of decades.

[SauronOfMordor]

I asked him whether this microwave-beaming would work; he snorted "no"

The answer why is found in the article:

The 240 gigawatts of generating capacity needed to replace the transportation fuel would cost more than US$4.8 trillion for the equipment alone. The 240 gigawatts of solar electric panels would occupy about 3000 square miles, the purchase of which would add to the cost.

Visualize the cost of transporting 3000 square miles of solar cells into orbit. It is cost-prohibitive. The act of launching that many shuttle flights would be an environmental disaster in itself. It only starts looking feasible in the context of having industry in space, with raw materials coming from the asteroid belt. Short answer: not this decade.

Nuclear is the only solution that is demonstratably workable within a twenty-year horizon