Energy revolution is coming?
Ignoramus4212
Apparently, a reactor is being developed, that can burn depleted
uranium, with fuel elements able to last 60 years before
refueling. They burn up fissionable elements much more comlpetely than
a typical existing reactor, this dramatically reducing the amount of
materials to be disposed.
Practical use of these reactors seems to be a long shot, but if they
succeed, it will be a revolution.
Wes
And the Warthog may need a new type of bullet.
Wes
Ignoramus4212
The optimistic view here, is that if we find a source of very cheap
energy, and convert to mostly electric cars, then we will need a much
smaller amounts of oil, for chemical industry, nylon stockings, and
such.
Without the need for nearly as much oil, we will not need the Middle
East much, would not care about its "issues" and may need a lot less
depleted uranium bullets.
Also if the demand for 2/3 of currently produced oil and natural gas
is removed, then the prices may follow the demand.
I
F. George McDuffee
===============
As in so many advances, widespread adoption of this would result
in a very steep depreciation of many existing assets and a
considerable monetary and political influence loss to some very
powerful people and organizations. You can see some of the
arguments being ginned up against at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling
Such advances as fast neutron reactors have been proposed and in
some cases pilot tested years ago. Among many other sites for
information see
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=5D1D3DF7-2B35-221B-65ECD6262B4898E7
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsSA1205.pdf
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NuclearFastReactorsST120805.pdf
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2009/06/nuclear-power-prospects-and-problems-power-infrastructure-energy-alternative.html
In any event, successful implementation of on site nuclear fuel
recycling and/or high efficiency energy conversion is likely to
result in the proliferation of new nuclear plants that would
eliminate much of the rationale for "carbon credit
cap-and-trade," which is to be the next big tax and finance scam,
now that "derivatives" are becoming widely suspect.
Unka George (George McDuffee)
..............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).
RLM
Google: Japan fuel cell
newshound
"Ignoramus4212" <ignora...@NOSPAM.4212.invalid> wrote in message
news:Zt-dnaI9o-_3cwbW...@giganews.com...
Havn't really thought hard about this, but essentially it's the same
argument that was made for the fast breeder back in the 70's. Unfortunately,
as designs of these were refined, it turned out that their breeding ratios
were not so good. There *are* attractions in sodium cooled reactors
(compact, stable, unpressurised), but also serious engineering down-sides
(for example fatigue in the structures caused by surface waves on the sodium
pools). And the chemistry/engineering of the secondary side is difficult.
If you are worried about the costs of enrichment, you can go back to
building natural uranium reactors (but they are big and expensive).
But enrichment isn't that expensive these days, and new uranium is currently
readily available. The "Westinghouse" and "European" advanced PWRs are built
on a *lot* of operational experience, and the designs have converged to a
fair extent on "intrinsically safe" characteristics.
Wes
>>>Practical use of these reactors seems to be a long shot, but if they
>>>succeed, it will be a revolution.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
>>
>> And the Warthog may need a new type of bullet.
>>
>
>The optimistic view here, is that if we find a source of very cheap
>energy, and convert to mostly electric cars, then we will need a much
>smaller amounts of oil, for chemical industry, nylon stockings, and
>such.
If a EV could do 200 miles on a charge, I'd be interested, 400 miles, I'm an acolyte. We
would need to set up battery exchanges and standardized packs for longer distance driving.
Hybrids have some a lot of short commings. You carry two different power plants to get
places. That isn't energy efficient. It is just a crutch for low capacity batteries.
>
>Without the need for nearly as much oil, we will not need the Middle
>East much, would not care about its "issues" and may need a lot less
>depleted uranium bullets.
>
Anyone that thinks GW1 and GW2 was not about oil is not thinking. The only reason we give
a chit about the ME other than Israel is oil.
>Also if the demand for 2/3 of currently produced oil and natural gas
>is removed, then the prices may follow the demand.
Well we can hope. I'm fairly sure the producers keep an eye on demand and throttle
supply.
Wes
cavelamb
Lowering the demand that much would drive the price through the roof.
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
Ignoramus4212
> Ignoramus4212 <ignora...@NOSPAM.4212.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>Practical use of these reactors seems to be a long shot, but if they
>>>>succeed, it will be a revolution.
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
>>>
>>> And the Warthog may need a new type of bullet.
>>>
>>
>>The optimistic view here, is that if we find a source of very cheap
>>energy, and convert to mostly electric cars, then we will need a much
>>smaller amounts of oil, for chemical industry, nylon stockings, and
>>such.
>
> If a EV could do 200 miles on a charge, I'd be interested, 400
> miles, I'm an acolyte. We would need to set up battery exchanges
> and standardized packs for longer distance driving. Hybrids have
> some a lot of short commings. You carry two different power plants
> to get places. That isn't energy efficient. It is just a crutch
> for low capacity batteries.
I am sure that it will be possible. Progress is being made daily
towards that.
>
>>
>>Without the need for nearly as much oil, we will not need the Middle
>>East much, would not care about its "issues" and may need a lot less
>>depleted uranium bullets.
>>
>
> Anyone that thinks GW1 and GW2 was not about oil is not thinking.
> The only reason we give a chit about the ME other than Israel is
> oil.
I have to agree.
i
Steve W.
Sounds just like all the rest of the alternative energy developments.
The problem is that as soon as people actually hear the words "we plan
to build the reactor in your town" all the NIMBYS come out to stop it.
There was a real nice wind project that was going to be built in my
area. 99.9% of the locals wanted it, the town, county and state all
wanted it. The NIMBYS managed to spend enough money to kill it!!!
Solar cells - In a few years these silicon items will be a cheap and
plentiful power source and will replace our need for fossil fueled power
plants. (Started in the late 50's) Still hearing the same things today.
Wind power - Home based power regional generation will make it possible
to eliminate the miles of wiring and large substations across the
country. (Started in the 30's) Still hearing the same things today.
How about those orbiting solar power plants that were going to beam the
power to the ground using radio? Haven't seen those yet.
Hybrid cars, Electric only, Steam, Kinetic energy, ALL have been pushed
as the GREAT SAVIOR.
--
Steve W.
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
Let's use up all the horrible, ghastly, dangerous, toxic lead stores
we now have. Who cares if enemy countries get contaminated? ;^)
It's not quite as heavy, but it does have a history of usefulness in
weaponry, non?
--
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study
mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and
philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation,
commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to
study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and
porcelain.
-- John Adams
Larry Jaques
<ignora...@NOSPAM.4212.invalid> scrawled the following:
>On 2010-03-13, Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus4212 <ignora...@NOSPAM.4212.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Apparently, a reactor is being developed, that can burn depleted
>>>uranium, with fuel elements able to last 60 years before
>>>refueling. They burn up fissionable elements much more comlpetely than
>>>a typical existing reactor, this dramatically reducing the amount of
>>>materials to be disposed.
>>>
>>>Practical use of these reactors seems to be a long shot, but if they
>>>succeed, it will be a revolution.
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
>>
>> And the Warthog may need a new type of bullet.
>>
>
>The optimistic view here, is that if we find a source of very cheap
>energy, and convert to mostly electric cars, then we will need a much
>smaller amounts of oil, for chemical industry, nylon stockings, and
>such.
Good.
>Without the need for nearly as much oil, we will not need the Middle
>East much, would not care about its "issues" and may need a lot less
>depleted uranium bullets.
Yes, possible.
>Also if the demand for 2/3 of currently produced oil and natural gas
>is removed, then the prices may follow the demand.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! He make joke.
Ignoramus4212
I lost you here Richard, why do you think so?
i
Buerste
"Ignoramus4212" <ignora...@NOSPAM.4212.invalid> wrote in message
news:Zt-dnaI9o-_3cwbW...@giganews.com...
>
I admit that I'm not on top of all the latest, but there have been vast and
wonderful innovations in nuclear power for the past thirty years but there
has always been one group or another that has always managed to squash
implementation. I seriously doubt that that trend won't continue. There
are way too many sub-plots and agendas in this soap opera. Clean, cheap
plentiful energy isn't really the goal of the people that say it is.
Jim Wilkins
> ...Clean, cheap
> plentiful energy isn't really the goal of the people that say it is.
We now know that the KGB was funding the anti-nuke movement, cleverly
funding locally-initiated ideas they agreed with and not those they
didn't so their steering influence was invisible to the leadership. As
long as we depended on oil tankers they believed they could strangle
us with submarines. I don't have a quotable reference for this,
possibly the source was the Mitrokhin Archive though 'anti' and
'nuclear' aren't in the book's index.
Vasili Mitrokhin was the archivist for the KGB's foreign service. He
secretly copied as many damning documents as he could and smuggled
them out to Britain, giving us an incredibly thorough list of spies
and secret operations. Yes, the Rosenbergs were guilty, Julius much
more than Ethel who was complicit but inept.
The current opposition to any and all practical sources of energy
doesn't seem to make sense, who would benefit? There's enough
opposition to even such a simple answer as hanging laundry out to dry
that a support group has formed, Project Laundry List. Somehow my
nonscientific left-wing acquaintances have been convinced that if we
all think correct thoughts a miracle will save us.
There's very little real interest in living low-impact lifestyles,
only in imposing them on others. In alt.energy.homepower I've posted
the simple and low-cost DIY ways I use to cut my energy use to 5 KWH a
day and two cords of wood a year in a standard New England suburban
development house and had almost no response asking for the details I
purposely left out.
jsw
cavelamb
Less demand - less production - higher prices for what there is of it.
Jim Wilkins
> >> Ignoramus4212 wrote:
> >>> On 2010-03-13, Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> Lowering the demand that much would drive the price through the roof.
>
> > I lost you here Richard, why do you think so?
>
> > i
>
> Less demand - less production - higher prices for what there is of it.
> Richard Lambhttp://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
Such artificial price manipulation has worked for gem-quality diamonds
but only because their strategic irrelevance means DeBeers' monopoly
can be safely tolerated. Industrial diamonds are far cheaper. You can
buy grinder dressers for $10-$20 a carat.
OPEC can't even control its own membership, let alone outsiders. How
fast and far did oil fall at the start of the recession?
jsw
John
wrote:
Hasn't worked that way in the past. I was working in the oil business
in Indonesia and knew production people in Pertamina (the national oil
company). When world consumption decreased and OPEC raised prices the
Indonesians started understating the quality of their oil, usually by
classifying it at a higher then benchmark viscosity - high viscosity
oil sells for less then light-sweet benchmark oil.
Many of the oil exporting nations depend almost entirely on the income
from petroleum so if demand decreases many of them immediately act to
increase sales.
John
Jon Elson
There *are* attractions in
> sodium cooled reactors (compact, stable, unpressurised), but also
> serious engineering down-sides (for example fatigue in the structures
> caused by surface waves on the sodium pools). And the
> chemistry/engineering of the secondary side is difficult.
Yeah, Detroit Edison had their Fermi plant in the late 60's. A piece of
molybdenum (I think) that was supposed to spread a fuel meltdown around
the bottom of the reactor vessel in the worst-case scenario broke loose
from fatigue and plugged up the cooling channels. They had a serious
fuel melting that turned the reactor into scrap. Even worse, they had
to spend about a billion $ in todays money to build a plant to remove
and safely containerize the liquid sodium so they could get in there and
see what went wrong.
I thnk gas-cooled reactors with ceramic fule pellets makes a LOT more
sense than some of these other technologies.
Jon