As one of the people who got George Mitchell to support disarmament talks, I can say that the disarmament movement was very grassroots. It seems to me that to get this kind of thing done, you need the organization to get well rooted in churches. When nuclear freeze did that, that was when the politicians started to listen. It may have been scientists who first understood the technical problems with continuing the arms race, but it was regular people who brought the politicians around.
The glory days of Russian trampoline champions are gone forever. Time for a US resurgence. Move over China, you're about to get bounced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
It is the cry babies who are holding things up. Yucca was doomed as soon as they started reporting fake data. Get over it. Let's look for something viable.
You are mistaken about the technical capacity of wind power. It can supply many times our current energy consumption. Solar has a thousand time greater technical capacity than that. And, according to your link, it is already cheaper than nuclear power and will get cheaper still. And, you have not really addressed the point about natural gas, which is that it is cheaper than nuclear power now, when decisions are being made about future generation. A fair few existing nuclear power plants will close owing to low natural gas costs and the effect of new renewable generation on average clearing price. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R...
The plants are breaking down. They are used. Decommissioning Maine Yankee (900 MWe) took eight years and cost $500 million. It ran for 25 years. For Humboldt Bay(63 MWe) it is $982.3 million http://www.dra.ca.gov/general.... it ran for 13 years. Vermont Yankee (620 MWe) is expected to cost $1 billion to decommission http://cleantechnica.com/2014/... after a run of 42 years. This estimate will likely balloon. There is severe ground contamination at the plant site and perhaps beyond its perimeter as well. Crystal River (860 MWe) ran for 32 years and is estimated to cost $1.18. billion http://www.tampabay.com/news/b... This is low ball because sea level rise will make the site vulnerable to storm surge and letting it sit for 60 years will not be an option. The more contamination, the greater the decommissioning cost. Extending licenses for power plants may double or triple the decommissioning cost owing to larger contamination and for sea level plants, a rush to decommission as the storm surge risk becomes higher.
Insiders are responsible for the greatest number of security issues.... so far. The NRC runs external attack exercise from time to time and plants end up showing vulnerabilities. Security guards are found asleep on duty. Spent fuel pools are not hardened against artillery or aerial bombardment. Collapse the spent fuel racks and you'll get a a meltdown scaled to a reactor many times the size of the reactor on site.
The NRC sent an SIT to the plant in response to the potential
tampering of a fuel oil line for an emergency diesel generator
that was discovered on May 26, 2013. Reflecting the NRC’s
post-9/11 procedures, the SIT report on the problems and
their remedies is not publicly available. However, the cover
letter sent to the plant owner with the SIT report is publicly
available, and indicates that the agency identified one
violation it classified as Severity Level IV (Reis 2013a)." http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/d...
For the US and Russia, they will point to arms reductions treaties over the years. China will say our arsenal is smaller than theirs. UK and France may opt for the same. India, Pakistan and North Korea will say they are not bound by the treaty and Israel will say "What weapons?" This is the latest effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
In this case no. This is a catalyzed reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen comes from electrolysis. The reaction is a more complete version of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... They try to go past methane. That reaction is exothermic so you should not need process heat to any great degree. The reaction won't be 100% efficient but if it is too inefficient the cost range can't make sense.
Seems like a barrage should be able to form a wave that can capsize a boat. Go back in and salvage and you get an addition to your own navy. Our first naval battle did exactly that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I think that is where the barrage helps. My guess is that a under a thousand rounds of these hitting in the same place could give you Barringer Crater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... A spaced based system probably could not deliver in that way since you'd probably use rockets to get the mass to orbit instead of this more efficient method.
Intercontinental ballistic railgun emplacements may end up replacing nuclear ICBMs since a patterned barrage may be more effective, particularly for excavating bunkers to decapitate command and control. The ground penetration problem may soon be licked and the Iranian nuclear threat can be settled through negotiations from a position of strength. Nice work Dalgren!
So, Austin Energy is paying $0.05/kWh for solar. http://www.treehugger.com/rene... and that price is expected to fall by 2020 when the technology is expected to be available. So, say $0.02 per kWh. You need about 32 kWh to make a gallon of jet fuel at 100% efficiency so that comes to about $0.64/gallon. If you want to stay under $2/gallon, the process could have an efficiency as low as 32%. Since hydrolysis can be done at much higher efficiency, and catalyzed fuel production is exothermic, they'd have to have very poor CO2 capture efficiency to make this look like the dog you are claiming.
You can probably count on better than 10% efficient with the quoted cost range of $3-$6/gallon. With an energy cost of $0.1/kWh you are already in the quoted range at 100% efficiency.
TFA: "The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years. Pursuing remote land-based options would be the first step towards a future sea-based solution."
This cost range is an interesting number. That is the cost for parasiting off a naval reactor. But those reactors are built to be rugged before they are built to be cheap. It could be that if you were to use stranded offshore wind energy the cost would fall to $1/gallon or so, which would be below market value.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
This would be a test of abiogenic oil hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
As one of the people who got George Mitchell to support disarmament talks, I can say that the disarmament movement was very grassroots. It seems to me that to get this kind of thing done, you need the organization to get well rooted in churches. When nuclear freeze did that, that was when the politicians started to listen. It may have been scientists who first understood the technical problems with continuing the arms race, but it was regular people who brought the politicians around.
The glory days of Russian trampoline champions are gone forever. Time for a US resurgence. Move over China, you're about to get bounced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Your friend must be lying to you then. http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
It is the cry babies who are holding things up. Yucca was doomed as soon as they started reporting fake data. Get over it. Let's look for something viable.
Don't follow a link with punctuation, it breaks the link. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are mistaken about the technical capacity of wind power. It can supply many times our current energy consumption. Solar has a thousand time greater technical capacity than that. And, according to your link, it is already cheaper than nuclear power and will get cheaper still. And, you have not really addressed the point about natural gas, which is that it is cheaper than nuclear power now, when decisions are being made about future generation. A fair few existing nuclear power plants will close owing to low natural gas costs and the effect of new renewable generation on average clearing price. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/R...
The plants are breaking down. They are used. Decommissioning Maine Yankee (900 MWe) took eight years and cost $500 million. It ran for 25 years. For Humboldt Bay(63 MWe) it is $982.3 million http://www.dra.ca.gov/general.... it ran for 13 years. Vermont Yankee (620 MWe) is expected to cost $1 billion to decommission http://cleantechnica.com/2014/... after a run of 42 years. This estimate will likely balloon. There is severe ground contamination at the plant site and perhaps beyond its perimeter as well. Crystal River (860 MWe) ran for 32 years and is estimated to cost $1.18. billion http://www.tampabay.com/news/b... This is low ball because sea level rise will make the site vulnerable to storm surge and letting it sit for 60 years will not be an option. The more contamination, the greater the decommissioning cost. Extending licenses for power plants may double or triple the decommissioning cost owing to larger contamination and for sea level plants, a rush to decommission as the storm surge risk becomes higher.
Insiders are responsible for the greatest number of security issues.... so far. The NRC runs external attack exercise from time to time and plants end up showing vulnerabilities. Security guards are found asleep on duty. Spent fuel pools are not hardened against artillery or aerial bombardment. Collapse the spent fuel racks and you'll get a a meltdown scaled to a reactor many times the size of the reactor on site.
"The Near-Miss
The NRC sent an SIT to the plant in response to the potential tampering of a fuel oil line for an emergency diesel generator that was discovered on May 26, 2013. Reflecting the NRC’s post-9/11 procedures, the SIT report on the problems and their remedies is not publicly available. However, the cover letter sent to the plant owner with the SIT report is publicly available, and indicates that the agency identified one violation it classified as Severity Level IV (Reis 2013a)." http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/d...
If we find there is intelligent life there, and go make the visit, we'll have resolved the paradox by being the aliens ourselves.
New START was negotiated with Russia.
For the US and Russia, they will point to arms reductions treaties over the years. China will say our arsenal is smaller than theirs. UK and France may opt for the same. India, Pakistan and North Korea will say they are not bound by the treaty and Israel will say "What weapons?" This is the latest effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Perhaps it is detector saturation.
Nuclear power is the slowpoke when it comes to scaling owing to its high cost: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-C...
The other energy cost is collecting carbon from sea water. That is not very high.
In this case no. This is a catalyzed reaction between hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen comes from electrolysis. The reaction is a more complete version of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... They try to go past methane. That reaction is exothermic so you should not need process heat to any great degree. The reaction won't be 100% efficient but if it is too inefficient the cost range can't make sense.
So... inside baseball....
Seems like a barrage pattern might work pretty well to produce a focused sub crushing wave. It would work like a directional antenna.
Seems like a barrage should be able to form a wave that can capsize a boat. Go back in and salvage and you get an addition to your own navy. Our first naval battle did exactly that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I think that is where the barrage helps. My guess is that a under a thousand rounds of these hitting in the same place could give you Barringer Crater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... A spaced based system probably could not deliver in that way since you'd probably use rockets to get the mass to orbit instead of this more efficient method.
Intercontinental ballistic railgun emplacements may end up replacing nuclear ICBMs since a patterned barrage may be more effective, particularly for excavating bunkers to decapitate command and control. The ground penetration problem may soon be licked and the Iranian nuclear threat can be settled through negotiations from a position of strength. Nice work Dalgren!
So, Austin Energy is paying $0.05/kWh for solar. http://www.treehugger.com/rene... and that price is expected to fall by 2020 when the technology is expected to be available. So, say $0.02 per kWh. You need about 32 kWh to make a gallon of jet fuel at 100% efficiency so that comes to about $0.64/gallon. If you want to stay under $2/gallon, the process could have an efficiency as low as 32%. Since hydrolysis can be done at much higher efficiency, and catalyzed fuel production is exothermic, they'd have to have very poor CO2 capture efficiency to make this look like the dog you are claiming.
You can probably count on better than 10% efficient with the quoted cost range of $3-$6/gallon. With an energy cost of $0.1/kWh you are already in the quoted range at 100% efficiency.
TFA: "The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years. Pursuing remote land-based options would be the first step towards a future sea-based solution."
This cost range is an interesting number. That is the cost for parasiting off a naval reactor. But those reactors are built to be rugged before they are built to be cheap. It could be that if you were to use stranded offshore wind energy the cost would fall to $1/gallon or so, which would be below market value.