Will one come up with an energy solution to our energy problem

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Klippymitch, Dec 26, 2007.

  1. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    I wonder if someone will solve our energy problems before we self destruct ourselves in a war for the last remaining energy sources on the planet earth or die from via planet destruction before a safe solution is found.

    What do you guys think is a more probable future to ourselves?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    immersion in self made worlds

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Sure, it will be solved, Klippy. The first step is already available to us - nuclear fission. That alone will carry us well beyond the point when fusion becomes available.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    Sure Fission is a back-up but that isn't going to last forever. And I'm skeptical on them being able to produce a working fusion plant for energy production for they have yet made a prototype that produces more than it took in.
     
  8. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    The fusion problem is probably because they do their designs by committee and they have to contribute to porkbarrel.
     
  9. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    Plus we don't have a smooth transition in plan for nuclear fission to be able to replace oil for transportation. There aren't many electric vehicles on the road and no one has solved the problem with hydrogen storage for vehicle fill-up stations.
     
  10. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    The US has been dragging its feet on fission power for decades.

    1. They still havent got ONE site for all waste storage. Yucca Mountain has been studied and developed since the 1970s and it still wont be finished for several years.

    2. The best reactor design at present is the pebble bed reactor. It was designed in the 1950s but still hasnt reached any significant implementation.
     
  11. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Solution: use less energy.
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Extra storage sites next to nuclear plants, however, won't solve the problem. They will just buy time.

    "You just have to hope that there's a national solution, because this won't be a Diablo issue -- it will be a national issue," said Richard Hagler, project engineer for the new storage facility.

    Anyone living near a nuclear plant also lives near a long-term storage site for radioactive waste. Those facilities aren't long-term by the standards of engineers, who must consider what happens to radioactive material over centuries. Homeowners, however, find themselves spending decades close to used fuel rods, with no end in sight.

    "They promised us that the waste would be removed and the government would come to the rescue," said Jack Biesek, 58, who lives in a lushly wooded canyon about 7 miles downwind of Diablo. "I think it's going to stay there. The handwriting's on the wall."

    Without a long-range solution for the waste problem, America's much-heralded "nuclear spring" may never come.

    "Obviously, waste storage is the elephant in the room," said Frank Bowman, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main lobbying group.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2006/06/11/MNGSHJCDDO1.DTL


    That being said, if they would convert to a Fast Breeded Reactor it uses up almost all of its fuel and uses other waste products as fuel for it as well.

    Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) power stations can generate electricity while producing more fuel than they consume.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_nuclear_reactor

    http://www.jaea.go.jp/jnc/jncweb/02r-d/fast.html
     
  13. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Exactly the point that I have stressed here several times! But it seems that few even begin to understand it and that most are totally ignorant regarding it.
     
  14. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    And the waste created can be reprocessed and 98% reused, with the remaining 2% having a much shorter half life than normal spent fuel rods. Only problem is 'it's expensive' and 'nuclear power is icky'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    It's not at all expensive compared to mining, refining and transportation of new material.

    And I'm not sure exactly what you mean about "icky" - but just guessing at it I would say that most of the people who think that are probably the same ones that believe in (and are afraid of) ghosts and other "spirit apparitions."
     
  16. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    France is using them and has been for decades without any problems!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    Well tell that to the general public is what I mean. Nuclear power still carries this image of being dangerous and dirty, even though modern reactors are extremely safe and reprocessing allows just about all the waste to be recycled into new fuel.
     
  18. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    The general public is coming around. They aren't quite as dumb as some people make them out to be and they are also seeing that all of the "green solutions" put together aren't really making a dent in our electrical energy needs.

    Try talking to the people in California, for example - they're ALL fully aware of the shortage, don't want ANY more dirty coal-burning plants and sure don't want to see gasoline prices rise any more by building oil-fired plants. That only leaves TWO possibilities for relief from rolling blackouts (especially during the very hot California summers!) - natural gas and nuclear. And besides oil, natural gas is THE most expensive way to generate electricity and would raise their power bills even higher.

    Yes, people can be slow at times but they ARE starting to catch on...
     
  19. Klippymitch Thinker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    699
    General public still believe solar and wind will be the future and can easily replace fossil fuels in the future.
     
  20. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Nuclear waste can be "burned" in nuclear reactors if the reactor is designed for it. Use it for fuel, don't waste it.
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    As I said, they are starting to learn that those two approaches have limitations. There's been a BIG backlash against wind turbines in some of the best locations - like coastlines - because people don't like them blocking the view. Solar is still far too expensive to amount to much and not completely reliable either, since even thin clouds cut the output of PV cells considerably.

    Solar heating is another that's suited only to certain locations and is intefered with by weather.

    And also as I said before, people ARE slow sometimes but they ARE learning. Many have bought "home-sized" windmills and were disgusted by the lack of performance, other bought PV panels and saw them destroyed by hail.
     
  22. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    How many products do you know that proclaim, “Hey, we’re 18 times more expensive to operate than the competition”? Well, Turby does, and it’s darn fine see some product honesty once in a while. Of course, they do go on to explain that if one factors in environmental and economic constraints not covered by their opposition, then the difference drops to just 1.8 times higher. Then they ask if your children’s future will be a livable one, if we stick with finite fossil fuels? That’s an easy question to answer. The harder one is, what makes the Turby 40% more efficient than many other wind turbines? Seems it has hit on an optimum design compromise between vertical and horizontal bladed turbines



    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/turby_a_wind_tu.php
     
  23. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,447
    I'm in Europe to attend university here, and there are turbines everywhere. There's also far more solar panels about than in North America. Hopefully it'll catch on everywhere else soon enough.
     

Share This Page