Beausoleil Solar Home

Nuclear power is the obvious future to this worlds power needs to anyone who is educated on the subject.

JMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by axg8750

Nuclear power is the obvious future to this worlds power needs to anyone who is educated on the subject.

JMO

---

Fusion is the dream .. from what I hear we have a couple of small scale reactors working

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Malkinson

Lithium batteries are the best storage we have and it stripped mined in China with tons of run off into drinking water. They have a shelf life and are messy disposal .

---

Look into Aluminum Ion batteries. Currently being commercialized with massive advantages over lithium based units. No exotic or toxic substances. Higher energy storage and charge times up to sixty times faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cajun90

The problem is that the general populace are clueless about the whole energy cycle and its ramifications based on a total lifecycle approach and risk analysis.

For example....using modern technology there are now zero greenhouse emission natural gas power plants that are capable of operating at efficiency levels that surpass traditonal gas power plants.

There are also nuclear power plant designs that can utilize waste from old reactors and by design are incapable of a meltdown.

The problem is that it is a political no go because of the perception of those who know little or nothing about the issues.

---

I am of the opinion that technology in the energy industry (both traditional and "alternative/renewable) will eventually be able to catch up to the fairy dream ideas, and do so in an economically viable manner. However, that is still developing. You can't snap your fingers and all the "dirty" petrochemical plants on the Gulf Coast instantly become "clean".

And you can't protest new ones being constructed like the Bucket Brigade here in Louisiana, because there is demand for the products created by those facilities, and they provide jobs and income base. But those same "dirty" companies many like to rant and rave about are also the very same segments of industry actually DOING something about emissions. Instead of holding protests in the front yards of Congressmen (like a group did recently in Houston, demanding Joe Biden devise their version of the peace corps so they can get paid to just protest), many, many companies in the energy/petrochemical industry are investing heavily in finding ways to curb and capture emissions in an economically viable manner that allows for those same high demand products to continue being produced and those important jobs to continue providing income for families and a tax base for local and state governments.

I am of the "we need all forms of energy available" mindset. The worldwide energy needs and demand from fossil fuel byproducts will continue to increase globally, even if the rate of the increase in demand slows. Population will continue to grow, so it needs to be all hands on deck for all energy sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by axg8750

Nuclear power is the obvious future to this worlds power needs to anyone who is educated on the subject.

JMO

---

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Rocky Flats. Yeah, it’s the way to go. Actually you can buy land north of Denver now, but it comes with a hold harmless clause. The I70 project has also had some issues.

Yes our technology is better, but stupidly still exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZoomZoom

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Rocky Flats. Yeah, it’s the way to go. Actually you can buy land north of Denver now, but it comes with a hold harmless clause. The I70 project has also had some issues.

Yes our technology is better, but stupidly still exists.

---

Out of 450 plants they have had but 4 major indicants plus fusion is way safer than fission and zero waste.

The BP oil spill and the Exon spill caused more environmental impact than all nuclear plants combined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZoomZoom

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Rocky Flats. Yeah, it’s the way to go. Actually you can buy land north of Denver now, but it comes with a hold harmless clause. The I70 project has also had some issues.

Yes our technology is better, but stupidly still exists.

---

And that kind of proves my point. You are talking about technology from the 50's and 60's and equating that to what we can do today. Do your research on the new nuclear power plant designs. Right now nuclear is the safest form of energy capable of meeting the worlds demand and nothing else comes close.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3...nd-sustainable

http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nucle...nuclear-energy

https://www.terrapower.com/ (This is a Bill Gates backed company that was very close to starting production of their new system designs when Fukushima happened and it became a political no go.)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ation-nuclear/ (An older article but still relevant)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Malkinson

Out of 450 plants they have had but 4 major indicants plus fusion is way safer than fission and zero waste.

The BP oil spill and the Exon spill caused more environmental impact than all nuclear plants combined.

---

Fusion would be huge and recent advances in magnets have made it go from dream state to a true possibility on a commercial scale. However the first working prototype reactors aren't even scheduled for testing until 2035. So we are still many decades away from large scale deployment of fusion reactors. In the meantime modern fission reactors have to be a consideration in our energy mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Malkinson

Out of 450 plants they have had but 4 major indicants plus fusion is way safer than fission and zero waste.

The BP oil spill and the Exon spill caused more environmental impact than all nuclear plants combined.

---

duplicate....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cajunrunner

I am of the opinion that technology in the energy industry (both traditional and "alternative/renewable) will eventually be able to catch up to the fairy dream ideas, and do so in an economically viable manner. However, that is still developing. You can't snap your fingers and all the "dirty" petrochemical plants on the Gulf Coast instantly become "clean".

And you can't protest new ones being constructed like the Bucket Brigade here in Louisiana, because there is demand for the products created by those facilities, and they provide jobs and income base. But those same "dirty" companies many like to rant and rave about are also the very same segments of industry actually DOING something about emissions. Instead of holding protests in the front yards of Congressmen (like a group did recently in Houston, demanding Joe Biden devise their version of the peace corps so they can get paid to just protest), many, many companies in the energy/petrochemical industry are investing heavily in finding ways to curb and capture emissions in an economically viable manner that allows for those same high demand products to continue being produced and those important jobs to continue providing income for families and a tax base for local and state governments.

I am of the "we need all forms of energy available" mindset. The worldwide energy needs and demand from fossil fuel byproducts will continue to increase globally, even if the rate of the increase in demand slows. Population will continue to grow, so it needs to be all hands on deck for all energy sources.

---

This is a very good observation of steps needed to achieve a “clean” energy system. Why we haven’t moved faster to putting natural gas vehicles into mainstream is beyond me. I figured once XTO was bought out, that would happen . Infrastructure hasn’t moved forward as fast as I thought. I have worked in all the major shale plays and in those areas we do see more stations . All of our fleet vehicles have been converted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atown cajun

This is a very good observation of steps needed to achieve a “clean” energy system. Why we haven’t moved faster to putting natural gas vehicles into mainstream is beyond me. I figured once XTO was bought out, that would happen . Infrastructure hasn’t moved forward as fast as I thought. I have worked in all the major shale plays and in those areas we do see more stations . All of our fleet vehicles have been converted.

---

Natural gas for vehicles would be awesome. But you said it, lack of infrastructure. Just like with the battery vehicles. Sure, in the urban areas they're practical, but not for someone living out in Jena, Louisiana, and certainly not for someone living out in Gail, Texas or Encino, New Mexico.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cajun90

And that kind of proves my point. You are talking about technology from the 50's and 60's and equating that to what we can do today. Do your research on the new nuclear power plant designs. Right now nuclear is the safest form of energy capable of meeting the worlds demand and nothing else comes close.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3...nd-sustainable

http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nucle...nuclear-energy

https://www.terrapower.com/ (This is a Bill Gates backed company that was very close to starting production of their new system designs when Fukushima happened and it became a political no go.)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ation-nuclear/ (An older article but still relevant)

---

Did you miss the point where I said the technology is better? It's the knuckleheads at the controls that concern me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atown cajun

This is a very good observation of steps needed to achieve a “clean” energy system. Why we haven’t moved faster to putting natural gas vehicles into mainstream is beyond me. I figured once XTO was bought out, that would happen . Infrastructure hasn’t moved forward as fast as I thought. I have worked in all the major shale plays and in those areas we do see more stations . All of our fleet vehicles have been converted.

---

Our local government got a large federal grant to create a CNG station and convert a large section of the fleet over to CNG/hybrid vehicles. The lack of CNG mechanics (and the cost of same) pretty much killed that except for the transit fleet. But the station is being used, saw an 18 wheeler pull in the other day by chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZoomZoom

Did you miss the point where I said the technology is better? It's the knuckleheads at the controls that concern me.

---

Well that is the point of the new technology... no knuckleheads required.

In all seriousness the new designs are passive safety systems. No human intervention is required to maintain a safe state. One design calls for the system to be buried underground and would require no type of human intervention until the fuel is depleted in two to three decades. Other systems do not require water for cooling, do not produce hydrogen and are incapable of a meltdown based on their design.

I've done a considerable amount of research in this area because I've been part of multiple teams reviewing equipment designs in O&G after Macondo and other accidents. Part of that work led to a partnership with Argonne National Labs out of Chicago. The guys who invented the atomic bomb. Their top safety experts teamed up with O&G subject matter experts to work on better safety systems for our industry. That led to me digging into nuclear safety pretty deeply and I've been very impressed with what I've seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cajun90

Well that is the point of the new technology... no knuckleheads required.

In all seriousness the new designs are passive safety systems. No human intervention is required to maintain a safe state. One design calls for the system to be buried underground and would require no type of human intervention until the fuel is depleted in two to three decades. Other systems do not require water for cooling, do not produce hydrogen and are incapable of a meltdown based on their design.

I've done a considerable amount of research in this area because I've been part of multiple teams reviewing equipment designs in O&G after Macondo and other accidents. Part of that work led to a partnership with Argonne National Labs out of Chicago. The guys who invented the atomic bomb. Their top safety experts teamed up with O&G subject matter experts to work on better safety systems for our industry. That led to me digging into nuclear safety pretty deeply and I've been very impressed with what I've seen.

---

2 of the 4 accents in was because someone was pulling on the rods controlling Uranium.. pretty easy fix don't let people play with the meatal rods

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott Malkinson

2 of the 4 accents in was because someone was pulling on the rods controlling Uranium.. pretty easy fix don't let people play with the meatal rods

---

A number of the new designs don't have rods and the ones that do are much different than the old systems. Worth to note also that the Chernobyl reactor design, which led to the disaster, was never built outside of the USSR.

The idea of conversion of the fleet of 18 wheelers to Ng with Pilot, Loves and others having NG distribution would be a game changer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by axg8750

Nuclear power is the obvious future to this worlds power needs to anyone who is educated on the subject.

JMO

---

Nuclear is the inevitable answer for electrical generation. The advantages in reliability and density make it so. Every energy transition in history has been from sources with less reliability and less power and energy density to sources with greater reliability and greater power and energy density. As the Texas freeze showed, the ability to store a couple decades of fuel on-site is also a larger than usually advertised advantage as well. (Just-in-time delivery is the great disadvantage of natural gas for electrical generation.)

Incidentally, the same factors make solar and wind energy absolute no-gos. They can play a small role here and there in electrical generation but practically speaking will never power the world. After all, you could power the world with mules pulling overhead wheels in circles, but at some point the question is going to become--how many mules and how many wheels?