YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[russ_watters]

Well, nuclear is limited due to the limited uranium available. I believe we have 50-75 years at current rate. Coal and natural gas supplies are finite.

That is only true because the current method for harnessing uranium (in the US anyway) wastes 95% of it. It doesn't have to be that way: that is purely a political choice.

 

[russ_watters]

If someone found out how to harness, vacuum energy, zero point energy, or a simpler type of nuclear energy. Would this be a viable solution to our energy problems? Or could it be too dangerous for the public to have access to?

zero point energy/vacuum energy (same diff) is not dense enough to be of any value.

I'm not sure what you mean by " a simpler type of nuclear energy", but the current technological state of nuclear power is just about where it needs to be to solve most of our energy problems. The barriers to its use are almost entirely political.

Nuclear fusion would be nice, but it isn't really necessary.

 

[nuby]

I didn't see this mentioned yet, but cellulosic ethanol produced at a local level could be good way to go (i.e, from ag. waste, rice stubble, arborist waste, etc.) . And, biofuels (biodiesel) produced from algae farms might be a good way to go as well.

Why not use corn stalks to produce ethanol instead of the corn?

 

[Mike Nagle]

First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.

Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition. I want solutions that will work - paying for them is another matter. Obviously, any solution will require making tough choices and (in the short term, anyway) spending a lot of money. No need to build a new budget to support it. If you say you want to spend a trillion dollars a year, fine (but the benefit had better be big).

If you want to solve the energy crisis you need to redefine the problem. As I see the issues the problem is how to create a system for creating and delivering enough energy for the whole world( in other words not just for my country). Once you have enough energy(electricity) technology will follow. Third world countrys can develop. And if your solution is "green" enough the reduction of green house gases.

My solution is, as you might have guessed, a very large scaled project. At the same time it is very simple to explain.

1. The world used 1.5 Tw in 2007. So to produce 2 Tw of clean energy I suggest building 10,000 under watter hydro plants aprox 100m depth.
1a. By keeping the internal pressure of the plants static we can use the external water pressure to power the turbines.
1b. Each plant would need to house 15-20 Francis Turbines generating up to 15,000w each, but at 100m there is a fair amount of real estate around.
1c. Building a world wide power grid would use the resources of every country from trench digging to under water construction to tech research to raw materials.

2. "The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence." With this plan capacity is as far as I can see a non issue, along with future availability and foreign dependence. pollution is 0 to negligible. Safety lies in the fact that all the plants are spread throughout the world so in the case of sabotage, or natural disaster the rest of the system is a backup. As for cost ? but it will create over 1 million jobs around the world.


There you go, if anyone has any feedback "good or bad" please post it. I want to hear from everyone.

 

[Danger]

Just out of curiosity, why would I want to solve the US energy crisis? What have they done for me lately?
Even if they become self-sufficient, they'll still keep trying to steal our Canuk resources because it's in their nature to take without giving back and we're the closest target.

 

[Count Iblis]

Nuclear energy as proposed by Russ is the best choice. We will need fast breeder reactors to generate enough fuel. Also we have to keep in mind that nuclear power plants cannot be started up very fast to deal with peak demand. So, we may have to build powerplants that can burn hydrogen. The hydrogen can be made using nuclear power. So, we generate a small amount of extra power which is continually used to produce hydrogen.

Another way to store energy is to use so-called "power islands". This has been proposed for wind power, but it works equally well for nuclear power. The idea is to build artificial islands in the sea. Power (wind energy and/or nuclear energy) is used to pump out sea water. When extra power is needed you let the water flow back in and generate hydro power.

These power islands can be made arbitrary large. They allow you to have an enormous peak capacity a very short notice.

 

[Mike Nagle]

Nuclear energy as proposed by Russ is the best choice. We will need fast breeder reactors to generate enough fuel. Also we have to keep in mind that nuclear power plants cannot be started up very fast to deal with peak demand. So, we may have to build powerplants that can burn hydrogen. The hydrogen can be made using nuclear power. So, we generate a small amount of extra power which is continually used to produce hydrogen.

Another way to store energy is to use so-called "power islands". This has been proposed for wind power, but it works equally well for nuclear power. The idea is to build artificial islands in the sea. Power (wind energy and/or nuclear energy) is used to pump out sea water. When extra power is needed you let the water flow back in and generate hydro power.

These power islands can be made arbitrary large. They allow you to have an enormous peak capacity a very short notice.

Yes but you then have radio active waste to deal with and the more nuclear plants in the world the more likely some one will have access to weapons grade material.
P.S. did you look at my post?

 

[Mike Nagle]

zero point energy/vacuum energy (same diff) is not dense enough to be of any value.

I'm not sure what you mean by " a simpler type of nuclear energy", but the current technological state of nuclear power is just about where it needs to be to solve most of our energy problems. The barriers to its use are almost entirely political.

Are you saying that waste and proliferation are just politics?

 

[aerospaceut10]

Yes but you then have radio active waste to deal with and the more nuclear plants in the world the more likely some one will have access to weapons grade material.
P.S. did you look at my post?

I believe they have been working on various ways to dispose or deal with the radioactive waste in a safe manner...One idea is to convert the stuff into a ceramic-like material...which makes for safer storage.

 

[paulleonday]

Why would we use our own oil reserves? It only makes sense to use other's. Even if we tapped our supply, do you think we would actually pay a lower price at the pump? Our reserves should be saved for future generations. Take the mythical dependence out of the solution. There may not really be a dependance. Maybe just smoke and mirrors...

 

[engware]

To All:

Even though this ongoing thread was started long time ago, I just noticed it.

Therefore, I would like to share some of my thoughts on this interesting subject matter.

I do believe in the energy mix as a way to move forward. I would start by using proven technologies and then work towards hydrogen and hydrogen based economy as the ultimate goal when dealing with global warming and sustainable energy generation. It is a real tough challenge, but that is where the ultimate solution to the energy problem is ...

In doing so, the emphasis is on using renewable technologies to generate hydrogen and then use hydrogen in a safe and reliable manner as the fuel -- energy carrier.

Here is a twist that would make hydrogen economy viable. Until now, power generation has been primarily done at power plants and, therefore, the cost of electricity is a few cents per kWhr. This makes it difficult to commercialize new environmentally friendly technologies.

Since today we have more and more computer devices used on the move being wirelessly connected to the Internet, hydrogen powered fuel cells could be a way to power such devices. Since these devices would work off the grid, different price structure could be put in place -- it is more of a convenience fee than some energy fee. In my opinion, this is a break for the people commercializing new environmentally friendly technologies. Such generated revenue could be used to fund additional research work and speed up introduction of other promising technologies to the commercial power generation arena.

Again, renewable energy such as solar (thermal and photovoltaic), geothermal, wind, hydro and "nuclear" can be used to generate hydrogen. During the transition period, biomass and other fuels can be used too.

At this point, let me leave it like this.

I would like to hear some feedback from Physics Forum visitors and members and I am always ready to elaborate some more on my initial thoughts.

Thanks,

Gordan

 

[shamrock5585]

I wasnt able to look over all of your posts and I am hoping nobody else posted a solution like this... This would probably be a very expensive project and I'm not sure if it would be feasible with our current technology but it solves pollution problems and energy needs.

Almost all of our buildings have emissions from heating sources and machinery. Each major city could build systems of piping to a central tube for all the emissions to go into... Ideally this central tube would go to space in order to get rid of all emissions... I am not sure exactly what would happen to the emissions once they reached outside our atmosphere or if we could even build a simple structure strong enough to reach that high. But the main idea is to have turbines in this central system so that the rising emissions would turn the turbine and create power to put back into the grid!

Welcoming input...

 

[engware]

shamrock5585:

Thank you very much for your positive and negative feedback to my input.

As long as the concept is self sustainable and generates revenues, I just do not understand what the "expensive project" atribute has to do with the concept and/or idea that solves and/or brings to the table ...

When you get a chance, please check out the US DOE web sites at:
http://www.energy.gov
http://www.fossil.energy.gov

In my opinion, such US DOE web sites should provide you with enough information so that you can find out the status of current technologies is and what the future direction of energy technologies is.

Thanks,

Gordan

 

[iced_maggot]

Realistically and without the gift of foresight, I am a firm believer that in the long term the solution will be nuclear whether that is fission or fusion in some way form or another. That is unless someone decides to build a Dyson sphere somehow but that probably isn't going to happen.

Also I couldn't read through all the posts here but a few people suggested organic fuels like ethanol and what not. This is a short term and limited solution not a permanent one as whilst it might help solve (keyword help solve, not solve) one problem food prices will skyrocket along with it inflation and this will create another problem. Even if non-food crops are used farmers will have a bigger incentive to not grow food crops and to grow the crops that create fuel as the need for energy will be so great.

Another option would be to use waste biomass however I do remember reading on an article somewhere (cant remember the link) that using waste biomass comes very close to if not crosses the line require in terms of input/output energy, i.e. it comes very close to using up more energy to create than it produces (BTW, this only refers to the use of corn waste as is the case in the US, other waste crops might be better, I'm not sure. I've heard Elephant grass is quite high yield).

Just food for though, pun absolutely intended.

Iced

 

[h.g.Whiz]

I heard lignite was supposed to bring oil down to 30$ a barrel within the next two years

 

[nuby]

To save energy..

Why don't cars have a built in waste heat energy recovery systems? i.e., a steam engine type booster that can convert heat into mechanical energy.. Is this really that difficult to implement? Seems like this could improve fuel efficiency by quite a bit.

Next thought.
How about energy recovery system from breaking, with hydrollics, flywheel, or magnetic/generator device.. I know this is in some hybrid vehicles today, but why wasn't it here 20 years ago? Sounds like the start of an energy crisis.

 

[Sam Lee]

For immediate short term fix, we should stop driving and start taking public transport like the bus or train. By taking public transport, we will reduce transport energy usage by more than 90%. The demand will drop and price of oil will fall.

That might give us a few more decades to find better solutions.

 

[russ_watters]

Unfortunately, that isn't an option for people like me who don't live in cities with good public transportation.

 

[vanesch]

Are you saying that waste and proliferation are just politics?

Yes, definitely. The waste is a non-problem, which has been discussed over and over again. Proliferation is not an issue in countries that already have nuclear weapons, or that don't have any desire to make some (take most Western countries that are not nuclear powers). It is only an issue with a very limited set of states. Of course, one has to be careful with sensitive materials. But with sufficient care, the remaining risk of proliferation can be brought below the probability that a country will develop its own nukes, at which point, nuclear power is not the main vector of proliferation (which it has never been, btw).

 

[mheslep]

For immediate short term fix, we should stop driving and start taking public transport like the bus or train. By taking public transport, we will reduce transport energy usage by more than 90%. ...

Could you show a source that shows public transportation will reduce usage by 90%, if any at all?

 

[mheslep]

A mass transit follow up. Energy efficiency of mass transit is not impressive. Cars are more efficient than buses, commuter rail is a little better than cars.

DoE Transportation Energy Data Book
Chapter 2, Energy
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Chapter02.pdf
Table 2.12, pg 2-14

Energy used (BTUs) per passenger per mile
Cars: 3512
Personal Trucks: 3944
Buses: 4235 (20% worse than cars, buses are the most inefficient of all DoE listed means of commuter transportation)
Rail, commuter: 2996 (15% better than cars)

Issues of congestion, pollution, and growth planning are another matter.

 

[Sam Lee]

From a pure science perspective, a bus is more efficient than a car.
A bus carrying a full load of 40 passengers will use less energy than 10 cars, each car carrying a full load of 4 passengers, when they travel the same distances.

And 4 people in a car will be more efficient than 4 cars with only one driver each, when they travel the same distances.

 

[mheslep]

From a pure science perspective, a bus is more efficient than a car.
A bus carrying a full load of 40 passengers will use less energy than 10 cars, each car carrying a full load of 4 passengers, when they travel the same distances.

And 4 people in a car will be more efficient than 4 cars with only one driver each, when they travel the same distances.

Perhaps, but that doesn't have much to do with a practical assessment of efficiency. Some significant percentage of busses are always driving around with few people on board besides the driver (or no one to/from the bus barn), and they are making many, many more energy burning stops and starts than the four passenger car making the same commute. So given a bus that is already funded and going to be driving around empty or full, it is perhaps justifiable for one to use the bus vs your car, but not to support increasing the number of them on the road, strictly from an energy usage perspective. Congestion, mobility for those w/ out other means, etc are another story.

 

[Sam Lee]

So given a bus that is already funded and going to be driving around empty or full, it is perhaps justifiable for one to use the bus vs your car

That is precisely the point. Start using public transport instead of driving whenever feasible. That will save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions.

 

[mheslep]

That is precisely the point. Start using public transport instead of driving whenever feasible. That will save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions.

No the point is blanket statements like this are not possible. Just saying go go public transport leads to more buses which will not save lots of oil and reduce carbon emissions. You'll do more for the energy cause in your (average) car rather than buying another bus. You can say take the train whenever feasible, just barely.

 

[Constructe]

Are you including all our exported energy dependence like the fact that we consume so much overseas that we are responsible for like 50% of China's energy useage and pollution? If not, our energy solution will go something like this. A declining population caused by weater related disasters and pollution even if we cut carbon emmisions in the US to 0. Lower consumption due to increasingly scarce goods and the fact that our money is being owned by everyone overseas (all we have is debt). So in the end, conservation or not, we will not be able to afford too much power besides hydroelectric. We basically burn about everything we can get in our country or countries we invade (Canada has lots of wood). Sounds silly grim but I bet your children's kids won't think that when they have kids. They will probably ask, "Why didn't you do something about it back when you could of?"

Af course we could build tons of nuclear power plants willy nilly and set up mass transit all over and encourage people to live close together. That will help a lot whit the gas problem. And we won't need air conditioning except on the top of the rocky mountains and in Alaska anymore. That will save loads of electricity if you don't mind no air conditioning. Now onto brighter topics... lol.

 

[Alfi]

Late to the party here but a few points:

(1) There are multiple energy markets that are currently only tangentially linked.
(2) There are muliple environmental, cost, supply and safety concerns.

Supply Multiple Markets The Non-Transportation Market The Transportation Market Air Rail Roads

wow.
nice post.
That took time, effort and thought.

thank you

if I may ask.
1) Do you think one presidential candidate or the other is better at understanding what you posted?
2) same question about the running mate for each.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

To save energy..

Why don't cars have a built in waste heat energy recovery systems? i.e., a steam engine type booster that can convert heat into mechanical energy..

Carnot efficiency.

 

[wildman]

Here is an interesting proposal from the CEO of the Bonneville Power Administration a few years ago:

He proposed building additional power houses on the large dams in the Pacific Northwest to capture the lost energy from the spring runoff (which is a huge amount of water). This power would be then converted into hydrogen which can be shipped to Texas in gas pipelines. Once in Texas, the hydrogen would be piped into the salt domes where natural gas has already been extracted. This hydrogen would then be pumped out when needed. I can't find the link but I recall that he said that all the oil used by cars in the US could be replaced with this hydrogen.

 

[wildman]

Here's the link:

http://www.bluefish.org/todrivea.htm

And keep in mind that the article was written by Jack Robertson the deputy CEO of Bonneville Power. This isn't some dreaming hippie freak.

 

[mheslep]

Here is an interesting proposal from the CEO of the Bonneville Power Administration a few years ago:

Former. He's long retired.

... This power would be then converted into hydrogen which can be shipped to Texas in gas pipelines. ...

Robertson does not mention pipelines, nor is it possible to ship H2 around in existing CNG pipelines. Making H2, burning H2 in an ICE - these are not the main problems. Moving H2 around and storing it in today's vehicles are; at the moment nobody has a workable solution.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Robertson does not mention pipelines, nor is it possible to ship H2 around in existing CNG pipelines. Making H2, burning H2 in an ICE - these are not the main problems. Moving H2 around and storing it in today's vehicles are; at the moment nobody has a workable solution.

Huh? The biggest problem is the source of energy - that hydrogen is an energy carrier and not a source. Hydrogen is already in use worldwide.
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf

Also, afaik, no one intends to run the hydrogen market like the petro market [pipelines and ships]. There is no reason for it. Part of the advantage of an H2 economy is that energy can be decentralized. It may be that the only real hydrogen pipelines will be carrying water.

 

[mheslep]

Huh? The biggest problem is the source of energy - that hydrogen is an energy carrier and not a source. Hydrogen is already in use worldwide.
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf

A handful of state sponsored H2 stations worldwide does not make them common. There are close to 200,000 gas/diesel station in the US. Note that it takes 15-20 tankers of 3k-5k PSI H2 tankers to deliver the energy of one gasoline tanker truck.

Also, afaik, no one intends to run the hydrogen market like the petro market [pipelines and ships]. There is no reason for it. Part of the advantage of an H2 economy is that energy can be decentralized. It may be that the only real hydrogen pipelines will be carrying water.

Decentralized helps, still have to get heavy grid multi MW connections or local power generation, and so far nobody has sufficient on vehicle H2 storage (DoE target vehicle range 300miles - nobody is close yet). Anyway Wildman's posted piece from Robertson was about centralized hydro power.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A handful of state sponsored H2 stations worldwide does not make them common. There are close to 200,000 gas/diesel station in the US. Note that it takes 15-20 tankers of 3k-5k PSI H2 tankers to deliver the energy of one gasoline tanker truck.

I didn't say H2 is common. I said it is already being used. There are certainly issues, but you made it sound like the over 15 pages of stations listed couldn't exist.

Decentralized helps, still have to get heavy grid multi MW connections or local power generation

I would debate this point if only because in the end, the practical production of H2 might be done by means other than electric. For example, one facility intends to use solar flux to crack methane, leaving nothing but pure Hyrdrogen and pure carbon-black. But I saw that there has allegedly been a big breakthrough at MIT? I saw that but didn't have time to read it.

and so far nobody has sufficient on vehicle H2 storage (DoE target vehicle range 300miles - nobody is close yet). Anyway Wildman's posted piece from Robertson was about centralized hydro power.

LAWRENCE Livermore employees and visitors last January might have spotted a white Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle driving continuously around the square-mile site. The car was making history by setting a world record for the longest distance driven on one tank of fuel in a vehicle modified to run on hydrogen.

...The Prius, which has a combination electric motor and small internal combustion engine, traveled 1,050 kilometers (653 miles) on a tank containing 150 liters (almost 40 gallons) of liquid hydrogen. The overall fuel economy for the driving conditions used by the Livermore team was about 105 kilometers per kilogram of hydrogen, which is equivalent to about 65 miles per gallon of gasoline. Coincidently, 1 kilogram of hydrogen has about the same energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline. [continued]

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html

 

[mheslep]

I didn't say H2 is common. I said it is already being used. There are certainly issues, but you made it sound like the over 15 pages of stations listed couldn't exist.

Sorry, I didn't intend that.

I would debate this point if only because in the end, the practical production of H2 might be done by means other than electric. For example, one facility intends to use solar flux to crack methane, leaving nothing but pure Hyrdrogen and pure carbon-black. But I saw that there has allegedly been a big breakthrough at MIT? I saw that but didn't have time to read it.

Yes Nocera's efficient electrolysis. Thats a big deal. With that coming down the pike, and setting storage aside for the moment, for fun I posted up somewhere the numbers to do an onsite solar fueling station. I came up with only ~3-5 acres out behind the station.

EDIT: Yes here's the solar powered fuel station musing.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1850582&postcount=14

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June07/Aceves.html

Yes liquid H2. The cryo process eats up ~30% of every unit of energy in the H2. IMO, it is compressed H2 at 10K PSI (carbon fiber tanks $$$) and the tanks are still 3-4x the volume of existing gasoline tanks, or some kind of chemical hydride storage, or nothing. Levin et al and their ultralight 'Hypercars' make a plausible case for compressed H2, they get ~300mi, but one has to completely redesign the car and thus the auto industry - no more steel, all carbon fiber, etc.

Some wild speculation now: I wonder if it makes sense at all to use local solar/grid electric/whatever to make methane and not H2? That is, use the Sabatier process or some such - H2 from electrolysis and pull CO2 from the atmosphere. That is still carbon neutral, the storage / transportation of methane is a not a problem, 8 million CNG vehicles on the road already (just not in the US )

 

[russ_watters]

I'd say you guys are talking past each other. mheslp is simply saying that it isn't viable, while Ivan is saying it is being done. But the fact that it is being done doesn't have anything to do with whether it is viable or not. What makes it not viable is that it can't provide anywhere near the same performance (specifically, range) in a car as gasoline. That's a storage problem. And he's right: "there is no workable solution" to the storage problem.

Moreover, energy production is a practical problem, while the storage issue is a technical problem. Practical problems are known to be solvable - we can just build more power plants. Technical problems are not necessarily solvable, but even if they are eventually, there is no answer right now.

 

[mheslep]

Yep, what RussW said.

 

[wildman]

On an earlier thread, someone said that you can't move H2 by pipeline. Why is that? Why can't we treat it the same as Natural Gas?

 

[russ_watters]

That said, there are also the issues of economic and political viability. These issues are somewhat a matter of will: we just have to decide to do it and if we wait, the decision will happen on its own. But the "it" of the capacity issue is big enough that if we wait, the consequences are disastrous. And really, there are two completely separate capacity problems. The first, what has just been discussed is 'where do we get the energy to power our cars when we run out of gas?' But the second is 'how do we stop pollution?' (global warming and otherwise). Answering the first question mandates that we add new capacity. Answering the second mandates that we replace our existing capacity (or augment it with nonexistent technology). These issues are big enough that this decision to go really needs to be made now. We need to decide to do the only viable (economically, politically, technically) thing to solve this two-pronged energy problem: start building nuclear plants at a rate of 20 a year for the next 40 years.

 

[mheslep]

On an earlier thread, someone said that you can't move H2 by pipeline. Why is that? Why can't we treat it the same as Natural Gas?

• H2 Diffusion. Crudely: A seal that's tight enough for a CH4 molecule looks like a window screen to the smaller H2 molecule.
• http://mechanicalplating.com/hydrogen.htm"
• Energy flow/pipe volume. For a given pressure, an H2 pipe needs 3.5X greater cross sectional area to push the same amount of energy down the pipe.

H2 pipes are therefore more elaborate than CNG pipes.

 

[mheslep]

...We need to decide to do the only viable (economically, politically, technically) thing to solve this two-pronged energy problem: start building nuclear plants at a rate of 20 a year for the next 40 years.

8000GW of nuclear? Why? Did you mean worldwide? Current US electric is 1000GW, transportation/heating/etc another 1000GW equivalent of fuel, and the growth rate is declining w/ increasing end use efficiency (as you've pointed out?).

The missing part of this or Sen. McCain's build nuclear proposal is the fix for the broken approval / regulatory process in the US, or whatever it is that drives the current plant proposal costs skyward. That is the hard part, as attempted remedies are bound to bring out protests. As it is, I wouldn't favor building even plant #1 at a cost of http://www.progress-energy.com/aboutus/news/article.asp?id=19482". It certainly means taxpayer financing as the private sector won't touch capital that big for 6 to 10 year projects; Moody's has said as much. For the waste issue, Yucca is fine IMO, but McCain needs to say he's going to go ahead and turn it on, now not later. I'd support a fix, but where's the plan?

 

[Count Iblis]

The waste problem is not as big a problem if you use fast breeder reactors. And why not use radioactive waste that cannot be reprocessed like caesium-137 as a heat source?

 

[mheslep]

... And why not use radioactive waste that cannot be reprocessed like caesium-137 as a heat source?

Cs-137 is bad juju. It enters biological pathways easily by chemically pretending to be potassium, stays in the body for a couple of months. We want to minimize hand-offs of Cs-137 and like biologically active radioisotopes, not increase them.

 

[Count Iblis]

Cs-137 is bad juju. It enters biological pathways easily by chemically pretending to be potassium, stays in the body for a couple of months. We want to minimize hand-offs of Cs-137 and like biologically active radioisotopes, not increase them.

Cs-137 will be produced anyway in nuclear fission reactions. So, why not design some fully automized factory in which you separate it and make some compound that contains it? This material would then presumably be red hot from all the heat generated by radioactive decay.

You can then make a heat exchanger out of it and use it in a powerplant or to produce warm water for homes. After 30 years the power of the Cs-137 heating element will be halved. You then recycle it in the nuclear waste reprocessing factory. The ability to do this safely depends on what we can do with machines and robots.

Robot technology is predicted to become much more powerful in the near future, so perhaps we should store radiaoactive waste in easy to access places.

 

[mheslep]

I know it is a byproduct of U fission. Again, you increase safety by minimizing the number of times its handled after its produced. I suggest: all reactors->truck/train-> single, permanent waste storage. Stop. Not: all reactors->truck/train->waste reprocessing->temporary storage->truck/trains in all directions ->install power plants -> remove from power plants -> temporary storage -> trucks/trains -> permanent waste storage.

 

[russ_watters]

8000GW of nuclear? Why? Did you mean worldwide? Current US electric is 1000GW, transportation/heating/etc another 1000GW equivalent of fuel, and the growth rate is declining w/ increasing end use efficiency (as you've pointed out?).

I think you slipped a decimal place there: Reactors (I said plants, but close enough) run at 1 GW apiece, so 800 of them is 800 GW. Assuming 2 per plant, that's 1600 GW, which would be enough to cover our electricity and most of our transportation, as well as convert much of our current fossil fuel heat to electric.

It was early, though - currently we have 100 plants, 300 reactors, so my math doesn't quite work out, but you get the idea.

 

[mheslep]

I think you slipped a decimal place there: Reactors (I said plants, but close enough) run at 1 GW apiece, so 800 of them is 800 GW. Assuming 2 per plant, that's 1600 GW, which would be enough to cover our electricity and most of our transportation, as well as convert much of our current fossil fuel heat to electric.

It was early, though - currently we have 100 plants, 300 reactors, so my math doesn't quite work out, but you get the idea.

Yes, arg, inventing zeros again.

 

[Astronuc]

Google CEO: How to fix U.S. energy problems
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10056099-54.html

SAN FRANCISCO--The United States government has been unable to fix the country's energy problems, Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt said, but the Internet giant on Wednesday proposed its own 22-year solution.

"We have seen a total and complete failure of leadership in the political parties of the United States," Schmidt said in a speech at the Commonwealth Club here. "We've been working on a plan to help solve this problem."

Earlier in the day, Google unveiled that plan, which doesn't lack for chutzpah: Clean Energy 2030 aims to wean the United States from its dependence on fossil fuels within 22 years.

. . .
Energy efficiency is at the forefront of Google's thoughts: the company operates hundreds of thousands of servers, and the company has warned that energy costs could outpace server hardware costs. So a decline in energy costs makes practical sense, Schmidt said. . . . .

Energy independence or at least much less dependence on external resources makes good business sense - not to mention provides for more security.

 

[mheslep]

Seems like Google owes more attribution to Pickens or DoE than a 'they also have plans'. Google's electric plan attached. The biggest Google change by 2020 is a big push in wind. Good idea, but it is not their idea, nor do they address the hard parts of making wind work (transmission costs and right of ways, base load power - esp over 20% wind, they propose 28%).
Also, they simply claim geothermal will go from 2.5GW to 80, 33X, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary backup.

 

[Topher925]

Google is investing some big money into all types of alternative energy. For example they gave 10 mill to venture capital company Makani Power (my companies competitor) for a high altitude wind generator. Other than throwing money around, I don't really see them doing much of anything.