Are Nukes the Only Viable Green Power Option?

But using solar for energy means this energy is no longer available for growing food, or trees, which absorb CO2. Have you ever seen a real solar farm? Have you ever looked at what that does to the environment?

Cwarner7_11, If not solar then what do you suggest. Granting that this thread is about Green options, then the current non-green options (oil, coal, gas, etc) can not be included because they, in fact, are non-renewable. Technically, nuclear is also non-renewable but of course it has a much longer cycle.

So if you would what is your idea for a technologically currently available green power source?

Cordially Dragon

Much earlier in the thread, I submitted a summary of an analysis that suggests there is no GREEN solution. We extract energy from our environment, as does every living organism of which I am aware, in whatever is the most convenient manner. When the environment can no longer yield up the energy that our growing population demands, we are dead. To delay as long as possible that ultimate outcome, we must pursue all available options. Nuclear may, in the long term, not be the most appropriate solution, but, today, it is the only PROVEN stop-gap we have available.

Cwarner7_11, Thank you for your prompt answer. I apologize, I did not catch that earlier post.

Dragon

Lookfar - "Hot rocks are radioactive? That is just another myth ..." Where does radon come from? Granite!! Actually both geothermal and nuclear are viable options, each with it's own set of problems. There are methods of reusing nuclear fuel that the government will not allow, thus creating a greater problem.

Taganan, As I asked Cwarner, What do you suggest? With the same stipulations, of course.

Cordially Dragon

Hi Dragonsfarm, I acknowledge you did not ask me, but I would suggest you have a bit of a look at the Geothermal hot rocks answers I have given to the hard bitten Nuclear guys and make up your own mind. Cheers, Geoff Thomas Advanced Wind Technologies. Kuranda Australia.

Dear Geoff, Geothermal is a partial option, as are nuclear, wind and solar, in my humble opinion. One way to prevent a great deal of the influx of dissolve solids into the heating and cooling cycle mix is to sheath the hole in a ceramic pipe. It could stand the heat (4500 degrees is the melting point of some compositions) and would add very little influx to the return cycle. Another option (with more research of course) is Helium 3 fusion. We have a large source as close as outside the magnetosphere. Or the lunar surface.

Personally, I am working on a new source. That is the extent that I am willing to go for now.

Cordially Dragon

I think you need to look at how the heat is brought to the surface...

The hole is not operated in a counter-current manner with a coil down the shaft. If you tried that the parasitic heat exchange between the cold-down & hot-up fluid traveling the several km depth of the hole would convince a casual observer that the Earth is the same temperature all the way down!

The fluid is pumped down an injection well where it diffuses into the hot rock. The hot fluid moves towards an extraction well where it rises towards the surface. The field is effectively leached of heat & soluble materials; and we know that enough water will dissolve everything in time.

I think you need to look at how the heat is brought to the surface...

Good reply. Rated as such.

The hole is not operated in a counter-current manner with a coil down the shaft. If you tried that the parasitic heat exchange between the cold-down & hot-up fluid traveling the several km depth of the hole would convince a casual observer that the Earth is the same temperature all the way down!

The fluid is pumped down an injection well where it diffuses into the hot rock. The hot fluid moves towards an extraction well where it rises towards the surface. The field is effectively leached of heat & soluble materials; and we know that enough water will dissolve everything in time.

Correct. And I am firmly in favour of continuing our R&D and practical uses of this technology. It is not however 'dream green'. It produces toxic waste as does every method of power generation. It puts CO2 into the atmosphere, much moreso than a nuke, and it can be hard to get at. But it is being used here in Australia. South Australia already looks like Mars so slinging a few million tonnes of toxic waste around won't make that much of a difference I suppose.

As I have pointed out to the 'Green' people in this group, geothermal power IS FISSION POWER. The only difference is in this model we are generating heat by sloshing water in and out of the core as opposed to contained heat exchange systems. I don't have a problem with that, but it's not very Green is it?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/hot-rock-power-the-way-ahead/2007/04/11/1175971183212.html

"Scientists get hot rocks off over green nuclear power

John Garnaut
April 12, 2007

PEOPLE could be using "green nuclear" energy in their homes within three years as entrepreneurs rush to produce zero-emissions electricity.

------------------------

Geothermal IS NOT zero emission. Even 'though the Greenies have finally woken up as to how hot rocks get hot.

------------------------

Geodynamics Ltd told the Australian Stock Exchange yesterday it had sped up plans to harness the heat generated by natural nuclear activity deep beneath the central Australian desert.

-------------------------

'Natural' nuclear energy. IT GOOD!

HEAT WATER!

'Man made' nuclear enery. IT BAAAADDD!

HEAT WATER!

--------------------

The company plans to pipe high-pressure hot water from the granite bedrock four kilometres beneath the Queensland-South Australia border, where the slow decay of potassium, thorium and uranium generates temperatures as high as 300 degrees.

"The granite is hot because of the natural nuclear activity in there - it's green nuclear," said the company's chief executive, Adrian Williams.

Dr Williams expects the company to send electricity to the national power grid by 2010 and later directly to western Sydney. By 2015, it could produce as much electricity as the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme.

Some scientists say hot-rocks technology could soon deliver huge volumes of economically viable power, thanks to the continent having the hottest and most geologically favourable granite deposits on earth.

"There's enough energy to run the country for thousands of years," said Prame Chopra, a scientist who sits on the Geodynamics board.

According to a conservative estimate by the Centre for International Economics, Australia has enough geothermal energy to meet electricity consumption for 450 years.

The industry has strong backing in Canberra. "I've been a fan for a long time," the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, told the Herald. "The theory is very sound. What they've got to do now is prove that it works."

The granite in South Australia's Cooper basin contains "fractures" that hold super-hot, high-pressure water. It could power a steam turbine then recyle water back into the bedrock for reheating.

The hotter the water, the more efficiently it can be converted into electricity.

Australia is home to all of the world's six listed hot fractured rock geothermal energy companies. One, Petratherm, recently signed a memorandum of understanding to supply geothermal electricity to South Australia's Beverley uranium mine by late 2009.

-------------------

I love it! Green nuclear energy providing power to mine U!

-------------------

Torrens Energy, which listed on the stock exchange three weeks ago, is exploring hot sites near Adelaide.

The greatest impediment to the renewable energy industry is that the nation's electricity is among the cheapest in the world, thanks to huge deposits of high-grade coal.

But geothermal energy is expected to be economically viable after a moderate cost is imposed on greenhouse gas emissions.

-----------------

So, this energy become viable AFTER we increase the price of power. Just so that no-one forgets.....

-----------------

Geodynamic, assisted by $11.8 million in federal grants, said it would produce one megawatt of electricity for about $45 an hour - compared with coal power of about $35.

The Prime Minister's taskforce on nuclear energy estimated the cost of nuclear energy at $40-$65, "clean coal" at $50-$100 and photovoltaic solar energy as high as $120.

------------------

And you are right. Water will dissolve anything.

Mark Addinall. Cairns, QLD, Australia

Reply to Mark Addinall (100) Apologies for not replying sooner, I felt that Mark Addinall had totally got it wrong saying Geothermal Hot Rocks produces radioactive waste, - it sounded like pure speculation to me, but I had to get the time to check it out. And yes he was dead wrong, I talked to Geodynamics, they have independent measurement and no increased radio-activity where they have vented water and steam, - they have an excellent FAQ on the radioactive question here, http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1271 Apparently the tiny bit of radio-active material is contained within in-soluble elements, anyway the proof is in the pudding, essentially no radio active waste. Mark does receive some support that radio-active decay may have produced some of the heat, and some perhaps coming up from below, - although I guess nobody really knows as no one has been down there. However I would have to say that I can easily tell the difference between radioactive decay millions of years ago and under 100 kilometres of rock, as opposed to a modern Nuclear power station on the surface, now, with no proven way to store high level waste, vulnerable to earthquakes, terrorist attacks, mechanical and human failures and monstrously poisonous for tens of thousands of years. Another area that has been part of this "Nuclear only" discussion is the renewables section, I have put a link below to the REN 21 site, that does a report on renewables every year, - they seem to be well sourced, if anything somewhat conservative. http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/default.aspCiting - the report says the renewable energy sector now accounts for 2.4 million jobs globally, and has doubled electric generating capacity since 2004, to 240 gigawatts in 2007 Various sources on the Internet give nuclear capacity of 366 to 384 gigawatts, it is very likely in another 3 years time (2010) that renewables will be at least 480 gigawatts as that rate of expansion is consistent already over 7 or 8 years now, and there is a lot of movement worldwide, - eg China plans to increase from 6 gigawatts of wind power alone to 100 gigawatts. By 2016 renewables should be at 1920 gigawatts and 15 years from now could be producing the majority of all human electricity requirements., so it is not a valid argument to ridicule renewables. Of course I am aware of the difference in capacity, - whereras Geothermal, Hydro, and recent Solar thermal plants may offer very good capacity, - perhaps even better than Nuclear in America's 91%, certainly wind and Solar offer much lower capacity, probably about 40% for wind and less for Solar Electric (25%). However, with very little industrial capacity devoted to Nuclear, and the majority of trained personnel due to retire in the next 5 years, there is just no way for nuclear to catch up, even if we wanted it to, - and just as well, as if the arguments in the lean economy connection are correct, http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear there is no where near enough uranium to do a great deal. It is interesting that a couple of years back the Chinese foreign minister at a conference in Asia announced there was not enough Uranium in the World for China to go Nuclear, (let alone the rest of the world) so their long term plan is renewable. ( I do have that article if anyone interested) It is also quite relevant to this Only Nuclear assertion the statement made in the lean economy article that there are no breeder reactors currently working, - lots of talk about them but no one can actually do it economically, maybe it cannot be done, anyone able to refute that? So are we getting close to refuting the original assertion? - I believe we are, - we now know Geothermal out classes Nuclear on every front, that renewables are almost up to Nuclear in capacity, increasing geometrically and likely to increase that rate, (Currently doubling every three years!! ) and that unless someone can refute with facts the lean economy guy, there is not enough uranium so Nuclear is not only not the only option, it is not even an option. I would suggest that the majority of funding be pulled from all Nuclear research and spent on Geothermal Hot rocks and renewables generally, - Forthwith. Cheers, Geoff Thomas. Kuranda, Australia

G.A.

Dragon

Nothing we have at present is acceptable to everyone, so I suggest we do everything and try to keep all of them as clean, renewable and economical as possible. We cannot throw away civilization and technology, because of some waste or pollution, and return to the Stone Age. My only suggestion would be to do our best and not obsess over it.

It will all end one day, good or bad, sooner or later, and I won't be around to see it, but on the whole I'd rather it be good and later.

Very well put Mark, I give you a good answer vote...

Cracking answer, you get my vote.

All forms of energy generation have problems / drawbacks, nuclear, hydrocarbon, wind and hot rock geothermal. Personally I believe that hot rock geothermal has a place at the table and nothing I've seen here has changed my mind, quite the contrary, I feelthe open and intelligent assessing of the ideas is a healthy thing.

As engineers and scientists we need to approach the subject in a clear and open minded way. The green lobby I feel tend ot to do this too well as they often appear to be preaching from a set of beliefs rather than coherently arguing their position.

BTW, all you guys seem to be forgetting the radioactive element potassium... There are three gamma emitting elements normally detected by basic LWD / MWD techniques, Uranium, Thorium and Potassium.

I'm glad to see you feel that solar doesn't have the pollution drawbacks :^)

So, can I interest anybody in a CSP manufacturing deal? We've set the bar at ~30 MW(e) of capacity per month.

We plan to mate the panels to synchronous gensets in the 50-400kW range. The goal is to produce the systems in the $3/W range, with a 20-year energy cost of $90/MWh.

The systems are intended for grid-connect & net metering, but can operate stand-alone. We can also offer boutique services like KVARs when desired in DG applications.

Hi Mark, hopefully you have read my reply to your previous letter, it is also a reply to this letter. I would question your assertion that I am naive, I search for the truth, sometimes I am lazy about proving it unless I must, but when I am operating from an engineering mind space I am not interested in assertions, rumour, hearsay and the like, I want to understand as best I can what is going on, - not what I fondly want to be what is going on. Global Warming is the topic behind Are Nukes the Only Viable Green Power Option, and I have noticed some in this list claim they don't have to give an answer because there is no such thing as Global Warming or etc, but I would claim that is not the engineers job, to decide, eg whether a bridge should be built or not, - the engineers job is to build the bridge so it will not fall down, and although he may not have personally seen a 100 year flood, if he even thinks there could be such a thing he will design the bridge to survive it. Global Warming is the same, it can not be proved until after it has happened, (dreadfully too late then) but any way of looking at risk management will mandate that Global Warming is a definite severe risk. We can not therefore sit on the fence, - at least not while wearing our engineer hat, but design and build the best answer to Global Warming we are technically or intellctually capable of, (if asked) My research to date suggests that Nuclear is not the only option, not the best option, and probably not even a real option , - http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear - therefore it is not naivety that makes me point this out, but a preparedness to face the truth and explore all options. I am actually a little bit angry at the level of analysis in this discussion, I expect better from engineers, and I am not even a degree engineer, I just do it. I did however appreciate you did some research on Geothermal Hot Rocks so I believe your heart is in the right place. Perhaps we will meet some day and I shall show you my wind 90% systems. Cheers, Geoff Thomas. Kuranda, Far North Queensland, Australia.

While I would tend to agree with you that geothermal hot rock technology would seem to show promise, it seems you are ignoring the impact of other so-called "green" technologies on the environment. If you do not have ready access to a wind farm, such as exist in Palm Springs, California or Livermore, Californina (two of which I have personally visited), I suggest you look for photos of these installations before asserting that they are environmentally friendly. One should also note that, at least at the times I visited the facilities, very few of the turbines were actually turning, suggesting that the overall capacity rating for the installations was somewhat exagerated when compared to actual output. With regards to solar, the most extensive solar farm I have personal experience with is one in Southern California, between Ontario and China Lake. It stretches for what seems acres (I do not have any statistics on the actual area), and it is rather obvious that nothing can grow below the reflectors- no plants can access the light, and no plants, no animals. The argument that this is desert does not wash- the desert environment is just as important to protect as the rain forest. Hydro? How much real estate must be flooded to provide a reservoir that can insure continuous head for your turbines? Hydro removes real estate- significant amounts of real estate- from the general inventory available for alternative applications, like growing food or CO2 absorbing trees.

I would rate your hot rocks approach much higher than most of the other proposed "green" applications, but it would seem that it is still in the development stage, and there are most likely limitations with regards to appropriate sites. While demonstrations have illustrated feasibility, there are still issues with the economics and the technology (i.e., drilling technology). In an earlier post, I cited a reference that essentially says there is no single technology that can solve the problem- not even nuclear. We can not ignore any of the options, if we wish to continue our current lifestyles, and support an expanding world population. All technologies have their shortcomings, and present challenges.

Hi Mark, hopefully you have read my reply to your previous letter, it is also a reply to this letter. I would question your assertion that I am naive, I search for the truth, sometimes I am lazy about proving it unless I must, but when I am operating from an engineering mind space I am not interested in assertions, rumour, hearsay and the like, I want to understand as best I can what is going on, - not what I fondly want to be what is going on.

Then you betrayed your own principles. Clearly you had no idea, and no wish to find out why 'hot rocks' are hot. You have just been told some fairy story that sits well with your belief system and argued them sans research. What is an "Engineering mind space"? An engineer would probaly respond "about 1.78 L".

Global Warming is the topic behind Are Nukes the Only Viable Green Power Option,

Incorrect. You partially answered yourself. The topic was "Are Nukes the Only Viable Green Power Option", not "Does AGW Global Warming Exist".

You have assumed the question relates to something that is based in your belief system.

and I have noticed some in this list claim they don't have to give an answer because there is no such thing as Global Warming or etc, but I would claim that is not the engineers job, to decide, eg whether a bridge should be built or not, - the engineers job is to build the bridge so it will not fall down, and although he may not have personally seen a 100 year flood, if he even thinks there could be such a thing he will design the bridge to survive it.

You have a very naive idea of what Engineers do for a living. Rather than being construction ROBOTS, we think, abstract, and give advice based on best practice and scientific principles. As you are aware, a few weeks ago you could not drive to my place in Freshwater, as the roads were closed between your place and mine. Due to flooding. Should we then build ALL roads in FNQ at least 50m above ground level to guard against this? How much will that cost do you think? And how does one get on and off the super uplifted highway? Engineers live in a world of measurement. We are the pedantic people on the planet. "show me" is my religion.

Global Warming is the same, it can not be proved until after it has happened, (dreadfully too late then)

Nor can the invasion of brain eating monsters from Venus. Just because I have seen it on the TV, does not make it likely, nor science. So as an Engineer, if the Cairns city council asked me to provide plans to build 50m high bunkers at the entry and exit point to our 50m high super-highway, I would be remiss in my role as a consultant Engineer to point out that this may be a waste of bloody time and money. The same goes for re-structuring our nation's power supply and a large part of the economy based on something that frankly doesn't exist.

but any way of looking at risk management will mandate that Global Warming is a definite severe risk.

And your risk analysis is based on.....

----------------------

Fill it in here

-----------------------

We can not therefore sit on the fence, - at least not while wearing our engineer hat, but design and build the best answer to Global Warming we are technically or intellctually capable of, (if asked) My research to date suggests that Nuclear is not the only option, not the best option, and probably not even a real option , - http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear - therefore it is not naivety that makes me point this out, but a preparedness to face the truth and explore all options.

Your research has been non-existant. Before ranting about the goodness of a particular technology, you might have spent at least three days reading some of the subject matter not published by Green Left Weekly.

I am actually a little bit angry at the level of analysis in this discussion,

Of course you are. You have had your belief system challenged by ugly facts.

I expect better from engineers, and I am not even a degree engineer, I just do it.

That might be one of the problems then.

I did however appreciate you did some research on Geothermal Hot Rocks so I believe your heart is in the right place.

SOME research! As a senior engineer for Ergon and Energex and Etsa, and then later as Manager infrastructure, Department of Minerals and Energy, do you think that this subject has been given more than a fleeting glance? More perhaps than a hippie living in the jungles of FNQ! ;-)

Perhaps we will meet some day and I shall show you my wind 90% systems. Cheers, Geoff Thomas. Kuranda, Far North Queensland, Australia.

Perhaps someday I can introduce you to my power generating pixies that live in my back garden.

Mark Addinall, Cairns, Far North QLD, Australia.

There seems to a lot of concern over the depletion of uranium resources. Extraction of uranium from sea water is possible and a very large source of the element. It is like oil however, There is very little $5 per barrel oil but as the price goes up so does the supply.

The use of Fast Breeder Reactors will increase the amount of energy that can be obtained from the current supplies by turning the ²³⁸U into fissionable isotopes of plutonium. Then there is Thorium which can be bred to generate ²³³U which is fissionable and I think that there is more Thorium than there is uranium

Transmutation of spent nuclear fuel will not only generate power but will reduce the amount of waste that must be dealt with.

Reprocessing of spent fuel is another source of nuclear fuel. Fuel shortage for fission reactors is not a problem.

Greetings,

I managed to read almost all posts ( which is huge and titanic). I personally was never interested in energy engineering. When I entered school, I wanted to go for computers for practical reasons not because I liked it. Only my friend was into energy engineering. It was in 1990, I told my friend that I want to build a computer a size of a typical textbook (thickness about 3 cm). He and other friends were laughing saying how can you fit a hard drive into it. Now we all dont laugh about it because today some grannies are surfing internet discreetly with a laptops even thinner than 3 cm and monitor included. My friend on other hand wanted to work on fusion reactor. I did not believed then that energy will be an issue and I wasnt sure that water is 'infinite'. But life led me a different path, in matter of fact I am not in computers and I am concerned about energy use etc.

When reading all the previous post, I noticed that all discussion were usually a dispute on what is safe and what is not without having a common ground - a definition of safety or green. Another issue is practicality. That theme was based on assumption or a fact that energy source or plant is centralized - energy is delivered to customers.

Many people were asking (in posts) what is green. I used hint from textbook biomimicry..which gets ideas of concepts from nature that derived them by evolution process. One of those concept is - Use waste as a resource. - a definition of 'green'. I would also add - 'that does not disturbs natural balance of life around us'

If we all put ourself in 18 century, people there would told us that coal is green becuase it is from earth in natural form that does not require complex refinary process etc..When burned, we get power, ash and Co2. Ash can be used for something else like construction purpose. CO2 is recycled by trees back to oxygen. It was okey as long as human population is small and trees were plentiful. Now human population is godzilla booming, trees are dissapearing fast because everyone like wooden furniture and everyone like to use a toilet paper...Power demand is increasing and time after time coal is no longer 'green' technology. Because our demands are overloading earth's balance that already has been established.

I think that the best replacement for coal is Helium3-Helium3 fusion technology if we want to uphold the above mentioned principle and keep it centralized. Helium3 is a waste coming from the sun. As far as I am aware, helium3 fusion reaction is the most difficult to achieve and yet the most cleanest by product reaction. Almost no radiation (theoretically no radiation) and safe becuase it will shut down itself by its nature if something goes berseck. It is also at least 80% efficient. I consider it green because it uses waste from the sun and converts it to something useful for us.

Another issue is that we all think in terms of centralized power plant. But have we though about distributive power plants. The best suitor for that alternative distribution is residential property. I roughly calculated (long time ago) that a house of two people can live on solar power if entire surface area of roof and garage roof is covered with solar panel. On top of that we can include windmill say (http://www.turby.nl/) just as a bonus etc. I never worked in hydro but I know that if all residential properties were designed like this, the centralized power plant will definately have a significant large drop in power demand. That approach will stimulate economy and create a new market in energy sector.

I agree to the previous posts that out there we have too much talking and and little action. Too much talking on this post too ehh....Yes, we need to be active on this now. I am active myself on this and I dont count on anybody especially government and some mega funding from gozzilionaires. I am doing simple small steps that are within my means to do so. One prof. said that small step can make a difference more than no steps at all. And what I am doing. I replaced light bulbs (100W, 60W, 40W) to efficient incadescend bulbs (20W 14W etc), when people were saying that I will go blind. I got rid of old car and bough a new fuel efficient car Corolla instead following my craving for a sexy sporty car like Mazda, when people were saying that the car will not make uphill. My job is not engineering at all and yet on spare time (at home) I told myself I will work to find something that is considered safe green energy source.

One thing I don't understand with Geothermal is why couldn't you use it to deep mine minerals and tap the heat for power. Turn the negative into a positive.

I'm a firm believer in turn the lemons of life into lemonade.

Yes you will get products that you will not use but when you finish inject them back into the ground in no more toxic state than they came out of the ground in the first place.

The real trick is to figure out how to keep the stock holders and bean counters from putting profit before safety and long term consequences. We don't need another super-fund site.

Brad

Let say you live in a "Little house on the Prairie" with a huge backyard and a nice river running. Unfortunately, you dont have a power source - electricity, but you have been given almost infinite money to build a small power plant to satisfy your energy requirements. Your have the following options to choose your plant (current technology) but you can pick only one and which would you choose:

a) fission reactor (any type and specify)

b) fusion reactor (any generation (3 in total) and specify )

c) solar panel - photovoltaic and heat

d) Geothermal

e) fossil fuel

f) coal

g) wood

h) wind

i) vodka - yes really.

When you make a choice, please state your geographical location...

Another question,

How much power annually your house consumes on average?

Thanks and happy thinking.

I would choose the bathtub fusion reactor being developed at Los Alamos (unfortunately, I don't have a citation handy to provide you). I use very little energy, actually- my monthly electric bill is less than $20. I don't know what that translates to in kW Hours because I don't have a recent bill handy (I happen to be sitting out in the middle of the jungle on a project right now). But it is pretty small, and the bathtub fusion reactor is probably overkill for me. I live in Panama...Air conditioning (if I used it) would probably be the most significant energy draw....And my computers.

An interesting question... Depends on what priorities are operational at the time... Can I dam the river and/or use hydro? Must I get all my energy from the single source? How many other people am I expected to provide energy for? How many competitors am I binging to the same method of energy generation that I select?

Each question significantly affects the decision!

But I'm gonna go with Solar. I can harvest the prairie grasses, and pyrolyze them to make what small quantities of hydrocarbons I might require for other purposes, like my aircraft fuel & lubes. My farm machinery can all be battery powered, and since the yard is huge I can dig a big enough hole to fill with rocks to store enough heat and ice to keep my solar thermal genset chugging away for a 10 day to 1 month long cloudy spell. How often do we go a month with zero sunshine???

I'm located in SW Connecticut, we use ~600kWh/mo, so I'd need <1 acre to supply my energy needs, and be 100% sustainable.

High Temperature Nuclear plants are most economical way to crack water to mass produce hydrogen for your hydrogen powered automobiles!

I vote that yes, nuclear power must be included in any 'green' plan.

The spent fuel must be recycled useing the newer design plants.

One of the major concerns with nuclear power is the disposition and management of high level waste. Without some form of reprocessing and Fast Breeder Reactors the responsibility for managing this material is some large number of thousands or millions of years depending upon who you are listening to. At least there is some upper limit to how long this waste must be contained even if it is a very long time.

The people who would like to continue burning fossil fuels and then sequestering the resulting CO₂ present a couple of problems. I don't like the idea of sequestering something that is rich in O₂ content because Oxygen is something that we all need and use. There is no limit to how long the sequestered CO₂ must be managed. Remember the lake in Africa that gave up a huge bubble of CO₂ and killed many people as well as their herds of cattle and other animals. Sequestered CO₂ and the mechanisms used to do it must be maintained for ever lest they leak and result in large numbers of human and animal deaths. Radioactive waste must be managed for a million years or some other large number but in the case of sequestered CO₂ the system must be maintained forever. In terms of threat to human life, sequestered CO₂ would appear to be more dangerous than spent nuclear fuel.

Death by CO₂ poisoning is not a pleasant way to go. I took a human physiology course with the student nurses even though my major was Computing Science. In one of our labs we had to breath in a closed loop with a CO₂ scrubber in the loop. Eventually the amount of O₂ reached the point that I was starting to pass out and the instructor pulled the mask of my face. The loop was recharged with fresh air and the CO2 scrubber was removed. As the CO₂ built up it triggered the breathing reflex and my chest was in extreme pain from the forced inhalation.exhalation eventually I removed the mask because I couldn't take the pain. The O₂ content in the loop was still quite capable of supporting life but CO₂ kept triggering the breathing reflex to the point that it was painful.

If a reservoir of sequestered CO₂ was to leak into a populated area people would die painful deaths. CO₂ sequestration facilities will have to be maintained forever, we will not be able to seal them up and forget them as is the intent with some deep geological repositories for nuclear waste.

I don't think it's the technical challenge; it's the political will, and the economic cost. Both high -level waste & CO2 could be sequestered in the same way at minimal risk, and for indefinite duration, if we simply had the will, and the willingness to pay the price.

The radioactive waste gets sintered into Al2O3(hot) or mixed with concrete(cool), and shuttled down a shaft into the ocean floor. Then capped with more concrete.

The CO2 gets pretty much the same treatment, a concrete caisson sunk to the critical pressure depth, gets the CO2 pumped down into the deep water, gravity & water keep it liquid & away from the atmosphere. We can even siphon it up when the next ice age starts to take hold.

I prefer Helium 3 vs Helium 3 fusion power plant. Helium is hardly used in nature and is abundant on the moon. The helium source comes from the sun. This reaction does not destroys hydrogen which is a building block for any life form. Helium is basically a waste from the sun and we as a life forms are turning helium into an energy. The reaction and by product releases very little radiation.

If you want a centralized power plant like today nuke reactors, the HE3-HE3 fusion is the answer.

EagleAlphaOne, Thank you for your confirmation of my opinion. My information was based on some theoretical work written up in a paper by J. Oppenheimer that I was granted access to.

As far as the post about PS, I believe the poster was referring to Popular Science magazine. That was not the primary source of my information, although it jogged my memory, and it is an amusing magazine.

Dragon

There are many types of He3 fusion reaction. Yes you mentioned it before on the previous post. But you did not specify exactly type of reaction. When you mentioned a small scale electrostatic approach..I believe you are referring to Gerald's Kulcinski method which he implemented in his lab,

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/536/1

This reaction is Deuterium (water) and helium. However, I was referring to Helium and Helium which is not even investigated in a lab scale. And yet this reaction is much cleaner and efficient than previously mentioned.

Nuclear power generation is in fact nuclear water heating to provide Steam to a turbine. Steam turbine power generation is past history. Modern turbine technolgy use a gas to start with and gas needs far less heat than water to create sufficient drive pressure for a turbine doing exactly the same job as any Steam turbine. Not only that it does not evaporate any water to the atmosphere and has no maitenance requirement unlike steam turbines. Also those forms of heat source now too low for heating water into Steam have more than enough heat and no Carbon emissions. But hey that means using technolgy of the 21st Centaury. God forbid that that should ever happen.

It is interesting to look at the way global energy production from different sources changes with time. In recent years, nuclear power production has stagnated, while renewable energy production has risen strongly. Using (slightly out of date) EIA data, I have produced a simple graph of the ratio. The slope is quite steep since 2000.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?659a75aab8.jpg

For individual homes, with occupants who are willing to sacrifice and not waste like most Americans, solar is an option right now. You have to have efficient appliances and lights. If you have natural gas, it's EASY to go solar. Yes, burning gas produces CO2 so use as little as you can. Unless you want to spend a lot on a photovoltaic system then you need to be frugal with power consumption.

You can buy natural gas refrigerator/freezers and that will reduce your electricity consumption bigtime. I think super insulated electric units are available also, maybe in 12 volt.

You can heat with natural gas or wood or possibly with solar hot water if you do a good job with lots of insulation, plenty of collection capacity, etc. I don't have a lot of experience with solar hot water but I'd think that with a good design it should be doable - use lots of insulation in the house design.

Lights can be 12 volt type found in RV's.

Solar well pumps are available.

Your TV can be 12 volt if you want a TV. Not sure about a 12v digital converter box, but 12 volt digital TV's are available. Think small. Say good bye to your big wasteful flat screen.

You can buy a 1/4 turn inline valve that goes in front of your shower head at ACE hardware for about $10. Works very nicely. Do NOT get one of the slider type valves - get the 1/4 turn type they are much quieter. You can easily take a shower using only 1/4 gallon per minute of water - I know - I do it every day - the shower takes a little longer - so what.

If your well water pump fills a storage tank, you can use a 12 volt RV pump to pump water from the tank into your house. Use a natural gas heater to keep the water tank room warm - provide code required vents and use good insulation - keep flammable liquids like gasoline out of any room with a natural gas heater.

Cell phones work on 12 Volt.

You'll need a few PV panels, a solar charge controller, a few batteries, etc. Doesn't need to be elaborate if you are frugal.

Many people are doing it today in remote locations in the US.

Sounds like fun if you are the type who wants a simple lifestyle.

Starband is available for internet if you are off grid, but I'm not sure of the power requirements - I think it requires 120V, not sure how many amps. If you have cell phone coverage might be able to use wireless internet via cell signal.

Laptop computers can be charged from 12 volt I think.

Of course you can use an inverter and then you can use 120 volt appliances.

There are lots of websites to help. Here's just one: http://www.backwoodssolar.com/

The electrical code, mechanical code, and ASHRAE handbooks discuss solar systems. Be safe.

"For individual homes, with occupants who are willing to sacrifice and not waste like most Americans, solar is an option right now."

This is a key factor- changing lifestyles are required to render this viable. The key is reduction of consumption, not necessarily changing the source of the energy. When living off-grid, this approach makes sense for those individuals willing to make the sacrifices and adjustments.

But, one must still contend with the fact that, when looking at total costs of a full solar system, which includes battery replacement every four years or so (and using quality batteries), payback for the "typical" consumer, as calculated from the savings on the utility bills, is still beyond the practical life expectancy of the system. It is getting better, but it is not there yet. If you are willing to pay more for the power you consume than the local utility will charge you in order to lower your carbon footprint, more power to you. I do not think most people are willing to go that far at this point...

I suspect you are correct on the payback numbers but I haven't done any calcs myself.

I know people in the sunny southwest who live off-grid due to their remote location. Their elevation is high enough that cooling isn't a problem most of the time. They use photovoltaic panels to charge batteries that power 12 volt lights, cell phone chargers, 12 volt RV pump for their water system, very small TV's, small 12 volt evaporative cooler, etc. Their system consists of only 4 panels and in the 25 or 30 years they've been doing it I think they have only replaced one or two panels. They don't have a lot of batteries, but I'm sure those don't last forever. Their system is small and their power useage is small so I suspect the maintenance costs for batteries, etc is small. As you say THIS TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT IS ONLY FOR THOSE WILLING TO LIVE SIMPLY. If you've got plenty of money you can go independent right now and still keep your inefficient appliances.

The people I know have natural gas available and that provides some heat, hot water, cooking fuel, refrigerator power, etc. THAT makes the size of the photovoltaic system doable even for people without a lot of money. If you don't have natural gas, you can use propane I think to do all that. Of course heat for the house can be with wood, especially if the house is small and well insulated and you have a good airtight wood stove that will keep a fire going all night.

I think they could do some heating with solar hot water but they'd need more panels to run the pump for that, plus a few hot water panels. With their cold winter temps it would not be a small system. For someone with plenty of money it would not be a problem.

Surprisingly, these people live in one of the sunniest places on the planet, many people in the area have money, yet photovoltaics and solar hot water are not all that common. Makes ya wonder. Then again, here in the USA, many energy efficient cars are available yet 50% of the vehicles on the road (more?) are absolute gas hogs. It is a problem with Americans. Mother nature is going to take Americans out behind the wood shed here real soon for a good old-fashioned butt whippin'. It's going to be ugly.

The optimal system includes a ground source heat pump (geoexchange) for heating, cooling and hot water. This is the only realistic current viable system that allows a substantial reduction in energy use operating as it does at an effective 300-400% efficiency.

And no, it's not over equity.

Hook this to a photovoltaic array and/or wind turbine to run it and you have a minimum of a 50% saving. This number can be improved using simple insulation and mechanical ventilation/heat recovery systems (see Gokay Devici - zero heat option), something that in particular North American properties are poor at.

Frankly, effective insulation would most likely cut US energy consumption by 25%, maybe more but until building standards are improved you won't see this happening.

However, as a medium term solution to energy consumption there is not really any option other than to go nuclear. Attitudes (particularly in the US) will prevent any major social change needed to push the majority into making the "green" choices.

Hello Philo,

In agreement, however do note with new technolgy atmospheric temperature is enough if CO2 is used as the drive gas. CO2 has both properties of being liquid and gas much the same as H2O however CO2 gives much more gas pressure to temperature than can be had with H2O.

CO2 is liquid at 31* Celsius and 74 barg pressure, so a 74 barg back pressure must be manetained to complete the liquid, gas, liquid cycle.

Cheers

Peter

Is there enough temperature differential in air to provide an adequate supply with a reasonable length of loop? Have been considering glycol as the circulation fluid but not done enough research into it yet.

Hello Guest, I enjoy speaking with people who are clued up.

In answer to your questions we have considered Glycol and many others. However the pressure to temperature is too shallow in many and others would not return to liquid at a temperature or pressure suitable to us.

CO2 is the Refrigerant gas R774. Its is liquid at 31* Celsius and 74 barg pressure. Its gas at 120* Celsius and has a pressure of 10,000 barg.

CO2 has pressure below 31* Celsius and that pressure can be exploited.

The gas pressure s of CO2 exist below 0* Celius so air temperature is sufficient heat to obtain full turbine/generator electricity production.

How this is acheived is by the turbine having larger footprint than when heat is lower temeprature.

The calculous for this being 1 litre of 9 barg gas pressure per second produces 720 watts electricity.

2 litres of 9 barg gas pressure per second produces 1,440 watts etc.

One only needs sufficient differential between the heat side and cooling side to obtain work pressure.

As it can be expected that usualy air temperature be below 31* Celsius we specificaly designed a turbine operation to recylce the CO2 in its gas form rather than its liquids form.

CO2 at lower temperatures requires a greater heat input to acheive work pressures than when CO2 base temperature remains at 31* Celsius.

I trust the CO2 Critical phase graph helps in this matter.

SuperCritical CO2 phase graph.

Please note the higher pressures obtained with less heat than when the CO2 is below Critical.

Cheers

Peter