Slashdot Mirror
Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions
sbszine writes "Australian newspaper The Age has an interesting story on squeezing coal before burning it in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The process, discovered by Victorian scientists, is expected to make brown coal (lignite) burn 30% cleaner. Good news, as Australia is the world's number one exporter of coal."
Paul Lenhart writes words!
I know Slashdot posts the occasional late story, but this is over 100 years old... that must be a record.
Squeezing can only hold back your emissions for so long.
Anthracite, the cleanest-burning coal, is also called hard coal because it's the densest variety and it contains the least moisture. Lignite, the type they squeezed, is the crappiest kind of coal. It is almost half water and is quite light. How many brilliant people did it take to think "maybe if we make lignite denser and take the water out, it'll burn more cleanly!"???
ResidntGeek
Who, exactly is touting this as good? If you believe in man made climate change, 30% less damaging than coal just isn't good enough. We need to be moving away from fossil fuels, not finding marginally less damaging ways to burn them.
And if you don't believe in mad made climate change, why bother? It's going to be less efficient, and therefore will create even more nasty emissions other than CO2, which isn't the only pollutant released by coal burning.
(No, I haven't RTFA, as it requires registration.)
...is how much energy does it take to squeeze the coal? Because if they end up having to burn 30% more coal to generate the additional energy needed to squeeze the coal, then it's not much of a gain.
Clean coal? Squeeze it, say scientists4 76492485.html 5 57913536.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/03/1091
Burning coal into the future
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/04/1091
Words to men, as air to birds.
Besides all that, we're seriously running out of DU after generously donating so much to Iraq.
Actually, as well, since it would be "produced", hydrogen isn't really a source of "power" it's actually more of a distribution system and in light of that, I'm not exactly sure I can trust your appraisal of the state of integrity and safety within the entire global nuclear power industry
Words to men, as air to birds.
The only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost.
But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacity to COMPLETELY eliminate our dependence on petro sources which are actually or potentially volatile or unreliable -- e.g., the Middle East...
I doubt it would help much, because we don't use a lot of oil (relatively speaking) for electic generation. Coal is the big player there. Most of our oil consumption is for transportation -- something for which both nuclear and solar are poorly suited.
the fact is, the fanatical Islamics wouldn't care enough to leave their region to bother us, if we were COMPLETELY disengaged from their part of the world -- which we COULD be, if not for our petro-addiction.
I could be mistaken, but I thought the big issue most Islamic extremists hate us for (or at least cite most often) is our support of Isreal.
"hydrogen isn't really a source of "power" it's actually more of a distribution system and in light of that, I'm not exactly sure I can trust your appraisal of the state of integrity and safety within the entire global nuclear power industry"
re: hydrogen: nitpicking. The point is, That Set Of Entities Colloquially Named As Alternative Energy Sources.
re: "entire global nuclear power industry"
not what i meant.
not saying all existing plants are safe;
saying that the technology exists to build new plants which are acceptably safe.
google for it.
"only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost"
which makes it not ready.
QED.
And this was part of my point, i.e. re-invest the savings (from leaving the Middle East) into making other alternatives ready for wide-spread use.
"our oil consumption is for transportation -- something for which both nuclear and solar are poorly suited."
nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS (versus technology).
It's fine for mass-transit and for hybrid cars.
"I thought the big issue most Islamic extremists hate us for (or at least cite most often) is our support of Israel"
I was expecting this response from someone.
The fact is, the biggest Islamic threat TO THE USA today, is from a group founded by a guy who's pissed about US troops not leaving Saudi soil after Gulf#1.
9/11 would never have happened purely because of Israel.
And ask yourself, in how many ways could the Palestine situation be fixed by a large infusion of *Western* cash?
The barrier to widespread use of nuclear is that it is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar.
nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS
And infrastructure. Electricity is fine for trains and trolleys, but another major component of mass transit (especially if you're talking about replacing a significant portion of private vehicles) is an extensive bus system. What kind of hybrid vehicles are you referring to that would use grid electricity? The ones I'm aware of only use gasoline as a fuel source. The "hybrid" part is the drivetrain which uses power from both the internal combustion engine and an electric motor to improve efficiency (batteries are charged by the IC engine).
And ask yourself, in how many ways could the Palestine situation be fixed by a large infusion of *Western* cash?
The real benefit to getting rid of our oil economy would be leaving many supporters of our enemies with little or no income.
Nitpick - Hybrid cars do not use grid power, all their electric needs are filled by onboard generators driven by the gas engine (or by regenerative braking).
Pure electric vehicles would be a good recipient of that nuclear power, however.
"From my cold, dead hands you damn, dirty apes!" - CH
This doesn't reduce the carbon emissions per unit of carbon, but it does increase the recoverable energy per unit of carbon. Greater efficiency means less fuel has to be burned for a given amount of output. This reduces net CO2 emissions.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Looking at energy density is somewhat misleading, because the conversion efficiency of these fuels into work is typically less than 40%, often less than 20% (I've read that personal vehicles average a lousy 17%). If an alternate energy source has a higher conversion efficiency, it could store more useful energy in a given space than the fossil-derived fuel. Watch my blog for this, it's an important topic and I'm doing an analysis of it.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
"nuclear is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar."
I think you already realize that these are two different senses of "ready".
I'm talking about "ready", technologically and financially, i.e. no MATERIAL barriers.
You're speaking of attitudinal/policy issues, which is EXACTLY the point of my OP:
that we must change our attitudes and be open and willing to re-evaluate the state of nuclear power, at least as an interim measure.
re: hybrid, you're right, I misspoke, since that term has been co-opted. I should have said "mixed" or "blended". Nuc-gen'd electric could be used to power cars TODAY. Billions of Defense-budget dollars can buy a lot of batteries. As for infrastructure, supplying re-charge sockets (or battery-swaps) at current fuel stations isn't significantly more difficult than the air/water self-service facilities which those stations already have.
"The real benefit to getting rid of our oil economy would be leaving many supporters of our enemies with little or no income."
Excellent point, with which I agree.
But 9/11 cost them less than US$1M.
And I still maintain that Palestine is the last on the list of causes of *exported* terrorism, and that $$$ -- *Western* $$$, for image reasons -- could go a long way toward fixing the Palestine problem.
"Nitpick - Hybrid cars do not use grid power"
agreed.
see latest post.
I recall seeing statements by ObL stating that the United States was a target dating back to 1988. He doesn't like "infidels", period.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
?Long after multiple others thought it was worth responding?
check your time-stamps before modding, jerk.
Nuclear power can be used in transportation to power electrolysis to generate hydrogen for fuel cells, or simply used to recharge a battery.
What is the output of a 75lb nuclear battery? If you can get it to 96 V 800 amps, then you can easily run a car on it. For a lot longer than the car body will survive.
That is what it will take to get us on nuclear- cheap, reliable, but most importantly MOBILE sources of energy.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Absolutely. And given the fact that cost per KW of solar power has declined steadily for many years, while popular acceptability of nuclear power hasn't seemed to change much indicates to me that solar is probably more ready than nuclear.
Nuc-gen'd electric could be used to power cars TODAY.
Very true. And we don't need to change the way we generate electricity to make that happen. In fact, there are thousands of electric vehicles on the road today. But they won't make dent in the market until they're as cheap and easy (i.e. recharge or swap battery/fuel cell in a few minutes) as gas or diesel cars are today. It has to be no more hassle than filling up with gas, and cost about the same (or cost a lot less, if it is more trouble).
Billions of Defense-budget dollars can buy a lot of batteries. As for infrastructure, supplying re-charge sockets (or battery-swaps) at current fuel stations isn't significantly more difficult than the air/water self-service facilities which those stations already have.
I see two major issues. First, there should be standard for charging systems. That could be a serious problem if each manufacturer wants their proprietary system to be the standard (pretty likely). The other problem could be getting retailers to install them. Not only do you need a rapid charger that will top off your batteries in a matter of minutes (less than 10 or 15 is probably necessary for consumer acceptance if other factors remain equal), but you need a reasonably uniform method of metering/selling. The latter may not be technically challenging, but it will add to the cost of a charging station.
I'm a big fan of solar. And I'm not opposed to nuclear, particularly if plans would account for permanent waste handling. And I like electric vehicles (but it will be hard to beat hybrids). My point is that you won't make changes happen overnight. Alternative fuel vehicles and solar power and other alternatives are making progress and gaining market share. But unless there is a phenomenal breakthrough in the technology (or major disaster that boosts oil prices or cuts supply to make it no longer competitive), it will continue to be a slow, gradual change.
Europe stuffs a billion dollars a year into the occupied territories. Fat lot of good it does with most of it getting siphoned off into the pockets of a few senior Fatah people, the only people allowed to accept the money in the first place.
Anyway, that's a digression. Westinghouse is trying to get a 1000MW reactor design based on an already-approved 600MW design through the US NRC. That's the only way to get the costs down to 4.5 cents per KWh, which is where it starts to get competitive for a one-off plant. Expansions of the plant to include more reactors, and multiple constructions of the same reactor design, will help to cut the costs further. The trick is to actually get construction started once the design is approved.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Why you don't want to heat the coal: The goal of the exercise is to not waste the energy required to evaporate the moisture. If pressing removes water with less energy expenditure than heating, that's a more efficient way to do it. (If the coal can be dried with the heat from nearly-spent steam, maybe that's better - but it would take lab work to tell which method is superior, and plenty of engineering to make a machine which can uniformly heat a fine powder and then transfer it to the boiler.)
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Yecchh. I've just been framing these thoughts since 9/11, and here's someone publishing in 1992. Oh well, at least I missed 12 years of feeling bad about it.
Makes me wish we really had space travel. There's been the obvious 'eggs out of just one environmental basket' in science fiction, but there have also been a fair amount of 'eggs out of Earth's political basket' stories, too. Really a good solution, assuming the right level of difficulty for the technology. Jihad develops no technology, but rather piggybacks on the civilization it's tearing down, and McWorld is after power only as a means to money, so as long as off-world isn't terribly lucrative, they'll leave it alone. Unfortunately the current level of technological difficulty is just plain too high, period.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Energy content data for coal is here.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Most definitely. Electricity generated from any source could. The issue is that vehicles using advanced batteries or fuel cells are not available and probably won't be for several years. Thus the point that neither nuclear nor solar are well suited to replace oil as our primary energy source for transportation.
Nitpicking? Hardly, in fact, I suggest you follow your own advice and try using Google. Or better yet, try to do some real research. A good start is here:
...
Hydrogen Fuel for Surface Transportation
http://www.altfuels.com/hfst.php
From where I am , it clearly seems that you possess only a layperson's understanding of these issues, which, logically led to my second point.
However, with a little effort on your part, I'm sure you'll be able to hold up your end of this discussion. At that time, if you're still of the same mind (doubtful), please, feel free to drop me a line so we can continue
Words to men, as air to birds.
"they DO hate liberty and democracy"
I don't dispute that.
(In fact it reminds me of the Japanese overlord of the galley-slaves in "Eric The Viking", who says, "You incomprehensible, horizontal-eyed, Western trouser-wearers! Eurgh! You all look the same to me! How I despise your lack of subtlety and your joined-up writing!")
BUT I do dispute that they would be exporting terrorism purely for those reasons.
Also, you fail to distinguish "they" from "Islam". "They" (the rabid variety) are a minority.
"requires that other civilizations be subdued. All others must convert or die."
Your perceptions of Islam are simply inaccurate. I could refer you to many knowledgable authorities, in and out of Islam, to support this.
Your views are descriptive only of certain fundamentalist sects. It's like saying that Branch Davidians represent all USA Christians.
"Not only is it unnecessary to begin a new subject with every post you make, it's considered hubris and bad form."
"Hubris"?
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm not sure to whom you're referring.
Regardless, I personally find it useful, whether done by myself or others.
"Nitpicking? try to do some real research. A good start is here"
I don't understand why you're doggedly obssessing on my having used the word "hydrogen".
My OP clearly said, "(***E.G.*** solar, hydrogen, nuclear)".
And then I explained in a follow-up that I was generically referring to "Alternative Energy Sources".
"it clearly seems that you possess only a layperson's understanding of these issues."
I never claimed, nor meant to create an impression, otherwise.
OTOH, one needn't necessarily be incapable of engaging in an intelligent conversation in that circumstance.
"follow your own advice and try using Google"
apparently I must have sounded condescending, which wasn't my intention.
Review my post history, and you'll see that such isn't my style.
"Google it" was my way of saying, in a (sadly confounded) effort to save metaphorical breath:
"I've seen convincing stuff about this written by people who should know, and right now I don't feel like going to compile a list of references for you, since *I*'ve already read it and I'm not sure you'd be interested enough to make it worth my effort."
Whew.
That being understood, what I was trying to say, is that, even as of several years ago, I'd seen enough to convince me that acceptably-safe nuclear is feasible and practical today.
The most salient point I remember about it, is that a new generation of plant-design involves plants which are basically "self-extinguishing", in that a failure of any major safety system results in natural physical forces shutting down the reactor.
(Simplistically: think of a reaction chamber which is hermetically sealed and completely submerged, and whose structural integrity is physically dependent on sustaining the reaction within nominal parameters, so that a runaway reaction will cause the chamber to collapse and be flooded and the reaction thereby extinguished.)
"Europe stuffs a billion dollars a year into the occupied territories. Fat lot of good it does with most of it getting siphoned off into the pockets of a few senior Fatah people, the only people allowed to accept the money in the first place."
Well, that would have to change, of course. I think the key would be to allow the populace to present a consensus of their *needs*, but for the Western financiers to directly hire the contractors to fulfill the needs, eliminating the corrupt middle-men.
It might be necessary to psychologically split them from the populace, by constructing new villages in territory which is isolated and thereby safe from terrorist interference, and then offer to the populace:
"here it is, brand shiny new village with schools and industries and hospitals, etc. -- who feels like relocating?"
"Westinghouse is trying to get a 1000MW reactor design"
You're obviously more up-to-date on this stuff than I am.
Could you please read my post #9882789, and then see if you can deal with the preceding post from "2TecTom (311314)"? (Wear your flame-suit.)
I'm sorry if I've come across as dogged. However, after much study, I've come to the conclusion that despite much better designs, there are none that are "perfect" nor are there any organizations that I currently trust enough to oversee the operation of a less than perfectly safe nuclear powerplant. Given what I perceived as a fundamental misrepresentation concerning the nature of hydrogen as an alternate energy "source", I simply felt that reflected poorly on your support for the nuclear industry on the whole.
s /letters/2002/4952008.html
Yes, I agree, nuclear powerplant design has improved dramatically. But as a MMI designer of SCADA software, I can assure you that there is no such thing as an error free control room.
Therefore, I believe your endorsement of the potential for nuclear energy should be reconsidered.
See:
Consideration of human factors and the quantification of the reliability of human performance arise frequently in the safety analysis of nuclear power plants especially in this era in which risk quantification plays an important role in the regulatory process. It is likely that human factor and human reliability analysis will remain important issues even for advanced reactors that emphasize passively safe designs.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acr
Words to men, as air to birds.
"The issue is that vehicles using advanced batteries or fuel cells are not available and probably won't be for several years."
This surprises me. I thought that battery cars are available (or at least feasible) today.
sorry, i have no idea what you mean by "nuclear battery".
I was thinking of batteries charged by nuc-gen'd electric coming over conventional power-lines.
I had an everything2 link on this- but my work computer seems to have everything2 blocked. Nuclear batteries are used by NASA on space probes mainly- they use a low level radiation source and a thermocoupler to generate electricity from the heat coming off the radiation source. I've heard that they're legal for civilian use in the Northern Territories of Canada- and it's easy to put in enough lead shielding to make it a perfectly safe form of electricity. The problem, though, is power output per weight; IIRC nuclear batteries are rather low on that score, and while they generate constant power for (at least theoretically) the half-life of the radioactive element used, the power generated might not be enough to overcome hauling around the extra weight for shielding.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"it will continue to be a slow, gradual change."
I'm not sure that it need be.
How long does it take to build a new nuc plant?
Let's say 5 years. Then we could legislate today, that we start building enough plants to replace all the energy from Middle East petro, and that, starting 5 years from now, there will be an extra tax on every NEW petro car sold in the USA, for every maker who hasn't sold its "fair share" of the number of electric cars needed to remove the need for that amount of Middle East petro.
"sorry if I've come across as dogged"
It was objectionable only in respect to the hyper-focus on the reference to hydrogen as energy source versus distribution system.
Thanks for the link. I read (skimmed) it, but found no place where they make the link between human/software failures and the *kind* of risks exposed, in the context of passive designs.
Certainly, no one would say that even a "perfect" passive design would mean that there are no residual risks of any kind: if a plant fails but safely "fizzles", it may still mean that there are enormous risks of financial loss, of "opportunity cost" and disruption from having to abandon the site, etc., and of risks to loss of credibility and public confidence.
But it's not clear to me that passive designs still involve a risk to life and health and non-local environment, which are different matters.
"a low level radiation source and a thermocoupler to generate electricity from the heat coming off the radiation source. I've heard that they're legal for civilian use in the Northern Territories of Canada- and it's easy to put in enough lead shielding"
YIKES! That's what I call getting up-close-and-personal with nuclear.
Personally, I'd NEVER feel safe about all that radioactive stuff being carried around in cars.
And there isn't enough lead on the planet to get the public to accept it.
I much prefer my nuclear, even "passive" designs, to be centralized at a remote uninhabited site, thank you very much.
Well, I hate to tell you, but you've already got the equivalent in a nuclear detector right inside your house. Look on the ceilings and walls for a white lump of plastic shaped like an overgrown hockey puck. It's called a smoke detector- and while there are a few that use different technologies, most use an Americium radiation source and a radiation detector with a gap in between to let smoke particles in- when the radiation detector stops detecting radiation in the proper ammount, the alarm goes off.
There's no need to worry about low-level radiation sources as long as they are properly shielded. And the shielding can be made entirely crash-proof; lead is a nice soft metal for absorbing dents as long as it is thick enough.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"you've already got the equivalent in a nuclear detector right inside your house. It's called a smoke detector"
Yes, but my house doesn't go rolling around the highways and exposing itself to collisions.
And don't the nuc batts carry a lot more of the stuff?
Yes, but my house doesn't go rolling around the highways and exposing itself to collisions.
However it's the same principle- you simply engineer the shielding to the situation. Like I said- lead is a great collision force absorbtion material.
And don't the nuc batts carry a lot more of the stuff?
Depends on the engineering, how much power you want, etc. But we're talking FAR less than critical mass- and not even enough to cause radiation burns with limited exposure. You could easily work with the elements involved bare skin, as long as you limit total exposure- and you probably get way more exposure from an X-ray in your dentist's office, and they carry those in ambulances. This stuff is WAY safer than you'd think- just because something is radioactive internal to it's shielding doesn't mean that externally it is harmfull.
There was a large outcry when NASA starte launching rockets with the stuff, but it was quickly pointed out that even in the worst case (rocket blows up, splits the canister in two, leaving the radiation source in a single lump someplace) that much larger lumps of radioactive material exist naturally all over the planet- and don't do very much harm to the environment.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
On one hand, prices have gone up, on the other, technology has improved. On the gripping hand, if Michael Laine has his way, that cost will plummet in the next decade or two.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Hyper-focus? I have no idea what you mean. I simply made note of apparent misunderstanding on your part and then used that to question the validity of your conclusion. Perhaps you're being a little hyper-sensative?
h tml a pters/15/7.html t m
h tm
By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.
I do agree designs are better. Are they perfect? Hardly. Every engineer will tell you there's no such thing as a perfect system. For example, the nuclear power industry tried quite hard from the get go to build "safe" reactors, Here is the result:
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hitimeline/nwa/index.
http://www.ieer.org/reports/accident.html
http://www.ccnr.org/CANDU_Safety.html
http://www.lbl.gov/nsd/education/ABC/wallchart/ch
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/cndscot/trisaf/ch4.h
http://www.clemson.edu/ep/radiat3.htm
http://www.sea-us.org.au/no2reactor/rr-oops.html
Once you've read through as many studies on operator error in control rooms as I have, then we can talk. In the interm, perhaps you should trust me when I say, it can't safely be done.
As well, the economics are not as good as you've been led to believe. See:
Nuclear Power is Uneconomical
Since its beginning, nuclear power has cost this country over $492,000,000,000 -- nearly twice the cost of the Viet Nam War and the Apollo Moon Missions combined. In return for this investment, we have an energy source that, until the mid-1980's, gave us less energy in this country than did the burning of firewood! In the U.S., nuclear power contributes only 20-22% of our electricity, and only 8-10% of our total energy consumption. In Illinois these percentages are much greater due to Commonwealth Edison's over-reliance on nuclear power.
Since 1950, nuclear power has received over $97,000,000,000 in direct and indirect subsidies from the federal government, such as deferred taxes, artificially low limits on liability in case of nuclear accidents, and fuel fabrication write-offs. No other industry has enjoyed such privilege.
According to a recent study conducted by the Citizens Utility Board, Commonwealth Edison's customers now pay the highest electric bills in the Midwest, due primarily to the over-reliance on nuclear power plants.
Many costs for nuclear power have been deliberately underestimated by government and industry such as the costs for the permanent disposal of nuclear wastes, the "decommissioning" (shutting-down and cleaning-up) of retired nuclear power plants, and nuclear accident consequences. In January, 1994, Commonwealth Edison acknowledged that it had to nearly double its estimate for reactor decommissioning -- from $2.3 billion to as much as $4.1 billion!
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/npfacts.
Words to men, as air to birds.
One example is given here. Output was 75W (30A @2.5V), for a 25kg unit.
So that would only really work if you had a battery electric car - the car would auto-charge whilst stationary. Probably not really an option, for obvious reasons (public paranoia, accident safety).
It is slightly surprising that we don't already use electric cars for short journeys; the only reason they cost more is lack of mass production, and they are cheaper to run. Only problem is the ~100 mile range.
I should have been more clear regarding the context of that comment. Better battery or fuel cell technology is needed (IMO) for widespread adoption of electric vehicles due to the limitations (range, cost, recharge time, etc...) of currently available vehicles. There have been production EVs available to consumers, but I'm not sure if there are any cars currently available (there may still be some smaller vehicles like the Bombardier, GEM and Th!nk which I believe are classified as "low speed vehicles" limited to 25 or 30 mph). I believe Toyota has discontinued the RAV4-EV and Ford's Ranger EV never made it to the consumer market AFAIK (it was introduced as a fleet vehicle).
I'd say that is extremely optimistic. In fact, I could easily conceive a number of realistic scenarios in which you'd be lucky to break ground in 5 years. You'd be better off subsidizing something like this (crude oil from industrial waste). I'm not sure what kind of cost per barrel they're getting, as it is primarily being marketed as waste disposal rather than energy production. Combine legislation favorable to that technology with serious increases in mandated fuel economy (CAFE) and you could put a big dent in our reliance on foreign oil.
By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.
There is no completely safe way of doing anything. Do you consider coal power (cf. 1,000,000 deaths per year) acceptably safe? How about personal transportation? How about DIY?
Once you've read through as many studies on operator error in control rooms as I have, then we can talk.
How many people have actually died as a result?
Nuclear Power is Uneconomical
Coal does not have to consider all emissions is its economic calculations. Natural gas and oil are now far more expensive and in short supply. Wind is only cost competitive when other plants are forced to switch off to make way (which is a massive subsidy).
Of the half-trillion dollar cost you cite, how does this work out per kWh?
I didn't mean that I think that '5' is the number.
I was just saying, "schedule the Detroit change to be phased-in at 'x' years, where 'x' = the time to build a plant."
Paranoia and Safety can be engineered around. The physical limit on power vs. weight cannot- and that's where the real problem lies. Charging while stationary though- that would be interesting, but how long would it take for a 75 W nuclear battery to charge an electric car or even a scooter?
The second bit- using electric vehicles for short journeys- surprises me too- after all, an electric scooter only costs $100-$250, depending on model, and is great for urban driving (in fact, it's better than a car- during high traffic times I can go places on a scooter that no car ever could). Not so great for my 50 mile (each way!) commute though.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
2nd reply- the Snap 27 itself would be a bad choice anyway, due to the fact that it uses a particularily expensive and hard to handle fuel, Plutonimum 238.
True, the isotope of plutonium is relatively safe compared with the weapons grade P236, but surface temperature of the fuel rod is 500 degrees C- which means basically factory assembly and total sealing/shielding would be REQUIRED for a civilian version. This would raise problems for the "cold" side of the thermocouple- which would have to be external.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So your saying Nuclear power has cost this contry over 10 billion $ a year and provides 20+% of our electricity... Sounds reasonable to me.
:) I think we need to design systems that handle such waste for 100,000 years at which point it's going to be fairly safe hell people may want to mine it at that point to get the usfull materials back. Afterall when the holy grail of power generation shows up fusion it's still going to generate some nuclear waste, not all that much granted but some.
Most of the early cost's where R&D much of which went to making bomb's. Now as to the gov giving 2billion a year to the nuclear power that's not realy that out of bounds either look what we have given the airlines. But, in anycase as money was spend on R&D USING that money would make more sence than saying well this is working teck but it cost alot of money to develope so we are going to drop it.
Nuclear power is dangerous but, so is the polution caused by most other energy sorces. I think it would be best stored in the middle of the ocean 4 miles under the ocean + a few 100 feet of rock. But, while it's the most reasonable place to put such things nobody is going to sugest doing that to the UN anytime soon. Honestly, no power sorce is realy safe afterall the "best" power sorce we have (solar) causes canser
Another advantage to gradual change is that it allows time for people and systems to adapt and work out any kinks.
After a little time to sleep on it...
McWorld is well-phrased. I hadn't put my arguments into those words, though I had been thinking that currently the US isn't doing too good a job of being the Champion of Civilizaton. For that matter, the rest of Western Civilization is acting rather badly with regards to excessive economic control, too.
The irony of it all... The folks that wave the flag, trumpet freedom, and thump their Bibles, by their words and actions, appear to stand for restriction of personal rights, except for gun ownership and the ability to make money. The pinpoint focus of the highest irony is that such emphasis on the ability to make money seems to me to be a lot like Worship of Mammon. Not that I'm against Greed, a proper amount of it is good motivation. But too much of *anything* is bad, and Greed is no exception. IMHO as a nation we're *far* out of balance, in this respect.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"There is no completely safe way of doing anything."
Untrue rhethoric.
Do you consider coal power (cf. 1,000,000 deaths per year) acceptably safe?
No, but the problem isn't coal per se, from what I can see, it is the greed and irresponsibility of the power planet owners that cause these deaths.
"How many people have actually died as a result?"
Way to many. Of couse, since it doesn't seem to affect you personally, you continue merrily on in denial.
If major industrial concerns carried their own weight and if we had invested properly in research concerning alternatives and if the market wasn't corrupt, yes, by now, we would have an economical, non polluting energy system.
We have the technology. What we don't have is ethical and responsible leadership.
I believe that you can thank all of those who turn their backs on these issues due to the privileges they enjoy.
Go on, justify evil some more. Ignore the suffering of billions. You must be so proud.
Words to men, as air to birds.
Reasonable ... lol ... sure. Please, reread the article.
Let me rephrase this. There was never any real need for any subsidies. These companies spent public funds while generating massive private wealth for a privileged few.
Funny how people get upset when someone steals their bike / car / wallet etc. but they seem ok when others steal thier lives, savings and freedoms.
Well, enjoy yourself. You seem quite good at it.
Words to men, as air to birds.
Untrue rhethoric
Do you mean there is a zero risk way of doing ANYTHING? Seriously, life involves risks, and therefore every activity involves a risk vs. utility judgement and calculation. Otherwise you'd have to oppose everything.
No, but the problem isn't coal per se, from what I can see, it is the greed and irresponsibility of the power planet owners that cause these deaths.
Coal dosen't have to account for it's externalities. Nuclear does, pretty much uniquely amongst all energy sources considered.
Way to many. Of couse, since it doesn't seem to affect you personally, you continue merrily on in denial.
And you accuse ME of rhetoric? What matters is deaths per kilowatt hour, since that's the only way of comparing options properly.
We have the technology. What we don't have is ethical and responsible leadership.
I agree. The technology is nuclear.
I believe that you can thank all of those who turn their backs on these issues due to the privileges they enjoy.
Environmentalism is itself a luxury; and I believe that those who oppose nuclear power are by definition turning their backs on the solution to most of our environmental problems, as well as the the political problems assocaited with energy dependance.
Go on, justify evil some more. Ignore the suffering of billions. You must be so proud.
What evil am I justifying? Halting global warming? Clearing up the smog? Providing enough energy for everyone to have a decent standard of living? Tell me.
"reread the article"
.05% of your tax money which... o NM. Just have fun chances are good that anger you feel is going to do little more than get you killed. So if you want to deal with the problem fine hell if you just want some of that money fine but go live your life and don't wast your time being pissed off over the 250,000,000+ eople that are fighting over how to spend 1/2 your money.
Umm, first off are you talking about an article other than Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions? cuz unless i missed something it's not talking about nukes at all.
And 2nd I am sorry but I know money changes hands all the time honestly everybody's hand is in the government pot. It's realy the basic inificency of representive government. But, for those who wish to trade there "vote" for money fine with me I have other isues I want addressed. So I will vote for your powerplant if you will vote for my school... Graft is a basic function of the system we have. Now I know the rich keep geting richer but there are many things that keep them in balance aka fixed pot of gold and many many hands. But, anyway Nukes provide the US with about as much power as they can "you can't tourn them on and off very quickly" which limits how much we can rely on them right now. So like most utility's there a good investment if you care more about not losing your money than makeing a killing but that's about it. (limited grouth potential)
I don't know some things like insider trading bother me. But, as long as your open about the fact you want a hand out (farmers) fine with me. It's a dog eat dog world and when you notice the game everyone else is playing you can start to deal with the world and not bemone how you wish it would operate. Shure I would pay less in taxes and have more money then again I could also tip less and have more money. I look at social security as money stolen from me but it's all part of the same system so I can deal with that. Yes the government takes about 1/2 the money I make fine it sucks but I still have more moeny than I know what to do with so I realy don't give a damm.
Well fine if you think the fact that around 0.1% of your tax money is being given to nuke power people fine feel free to do somthing about it. I don't realy stress over it that much. Afterall the government is going to take 1/2 of it back anyway so we are realy talking about
PS: Feel free to coment if you have gotten this far I do wander what you thingk about this.