Nuclear power is the obvious future to this worlds power needs to anyone who is educated on the subject.
JMO
Nuclear power is the obvious future to this worlds power needs to anyone who is educated on the subject.
JMO
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.
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)
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.
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.
Did you miss the point where I said the technology is better? It's the knuckleheads at the controls that concern me.
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.
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.
There are currently 10 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 10 guests)