Pickens Plan -alternative energy

[vanesch]

I completely agree with you Cheeto. from my perspective, the world knows that using fusion to generate the electricity to power the world is possible. Of course there are speed bumps and mountains that must be traversed as usual. But this was also the case during WWII. They knew a massive uncontrolled fusion reaction capable of leveling a city was possible; given the money and resources, they succeeded. I think this is just as important if not more than this case.
After all, its about saving the planet; not just the USA... (there's some perspective for ya)

I would like to chime in. It is not about "saving the planet" (that's some Gaia worshippers' religion's claim), but about "saving our lifestyle". So we should find solutions compatible with our lifestyle to save it in the first place. That means that whatever we are going to use as energy sources must be plentiful and economical (including external costs).

There's a big difference between making an atomic bomb, which is in fact "easy" (nature does it for you, you just have to configure things correctly), and making a power-delivering fusion reactor, which has turned out very very difficult. I'm also convinced that one day, fusion will be a possible power source. The point is that this day is probably at least a century away from us: net energy production has not even been demonstrated in extremely sophisticated LABORATORY conditions. So doing this on an INDUSTRIAL scale, and in a COMPETITIVE WAY, is still science fiction. We need to "shift gears" technologically before this becomes conceivable. So putting some brilliant scientists together and giving them unlimited budget for a few years (like the Manhattan project) won't do. Making a nuke was child's game compared to this challenge. Fission is "waiting to happen". Fusion, you have to force it.

With these spirits in mind, could someone give me a rough estimate of how much $ would have to be spent to just get this research going steady? Excluding the funding money for the following years; who knows how long and how much money would go into it. but Fusion is a topic for another thread.

ITER is going to run for 30 years, to try to demonstrate for the first time the possibility of producing as much energy as has been put in. Halfway through ITER one will have to determine the design parameters of "DEMO" which should start around 2050 or so, which should demonstrate the possibility of *practical* (but not economical) power production. After that, one should find out whether it is industrially and economically feasible to design a genuine reactor (DEMO will be an international collaboration of which every KWh will be several times the market price if everything works well).

I think one should do that. But I don't think one should include any speculations about any results in any serious energy policy for the coming decades.

 

[dlgoff]

Before you plan to install your own wind turbine or wind farm, you must know if the wind resource in your location is adequate.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp"
If we only had wind everywhere.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For sure it isn't "too cheap to meter", but concerning the competition with coal, have a look here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.

I should have said in the US, where we have plenty of cheap coal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_maps.asp"
If we only had wind everywhere.

To me, this wind option still seems well worth pursuing.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108344

 

[dlgoff]

To me, this wind option still seems well worth pursuing.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108344

Oh. I agree.
My hope is your algae oil will come to age sooner than later.

 

[mheslep]

...There's a big difference between making an atomic bomb, which is in fact "easy" (nature does it for you, you just have to configure things correctly), and making a power-delivering fusion reactor, which has turned out very very difficult. ... Fission is "waiting to happen". Fusion, you have to force it...

Certainly controlled fusion is proving immensely difficult, but before calling controlled fission natural and easy, after the fact of its realization, it is instructive to recall:

There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.

Controlled fusion may appear easy one day too.

 

[taylaron]

Certainly controlled fusion is proving immensely difficult, but before calling controlled fission natural and easy, after the fact of its realization, it is instructive to recall:

Controlled fusion may appear easy one day too.

It all depends on your perspective

 

[mheslep]

This is verging on misinformation, which is worth a third of the points needed for banning.

There is not a viable battery for electric cars; not cars that can meet the practical needs of drivers, less a small percentage of the population. If you only want to drive a golf cart ten miles a day, of if you can afford $50K or $60K worth if Li ion batteries every few years, that is another matter.

Perhaps we could both be more precise then and drop the 'price of two cars' rhetoric and stick to exactly how much battery is required, and at what price.

The price of Li ion, cited previously, is $450 to $1000 per kWh [1][2]

You used the same assumption earlier to calculate:

...So it would take $11,000 worth of batteries to get the energy storage and output of one gallon of gasoline.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1793313&postcount=121
That one - gallon equivalent is plenty, in a 50 mpg equivalent PHEV, to cover the daily short distance driving requirements of most of the US population [3][4], not some small percentage, and not in a golf cart.

All electric cars are not required to have a large impact on oil use. No serious policy makers are pushing all electric in any case; the non-feasibility of recharging in short times on long trips blocks this. As I've made clear previously, it is PHEVs than can seriously impact oil usage. There is serious literature saying the same:

Impact of Drive Cycles and Powertrain Configurations on PHEV Battery Requirements
Date Published: April 2008
Author(s):
Jason Kwon - Argonne National Laboratory
Aymeric Rousseau - Argonne National Laboratory

Abstract:
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) offer the ability to significantly reduce petroleum consumptions.. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), working with the FreedomCAR and Fuels Partnership, participated in the definition of the battery requirements for PHEVs. Previous studies have demonstrated ...

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2008-01-1337

A Preliminary Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Wind Energy Markets
...PHEVs
...For the average driver, the use of a relatively small battery delivers much of the benefits of a pure electric vehicle, without the disadvantages of prohibitive cost or limited range...

[5]

[1] $450/kWh http://spectrum.ieee.org/sep07/5490/3
[2] $1000/kWh http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/06/bob-lutz-drives.html ($1000/kWh)
[3] Table III.A-6. 29.5 average miles per day, light passenger vehicles. http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf
[4] http://www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/02/power-and-speed.jpg
[5] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39729.pdf, page 2

Now, please, no follow ups about how I am implying this solves all problems, or betting everything on one technology, or that this is the only way to go. I only point out what other (cited) sources say, that PHEVs offer a potential substantial reduction in oil usage.

 

[OmCheeto]

Nope, common mistake. You were using the price in the ref given for the turbine nameplate rating. The 1.5MW is nameplate, or maximum turbine power. Those wind turbines need to be derated to an average 37% capacity factor; that's the best average production coming from 2006 turbines installed in good US wind locations. Also, that ref 2005 price of slightly less than $1000/ Nameplate kilowatt is a bit dated now. Wind cost has risen since then given the wind installation spike, and sharply recently due to inflation (steel tower/concrete costs) so that now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate). The cost then to provide 2.87GW average power to those pumps solely from wind is more like 8 to 12 billion dollars. That also does not include any transmission needed, though you might need that regardless of source, and we've neglected any cost required to regulate the wind power via the water flow.
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf

Ok. So it'll take 10 years for the wind farms to pay for themselves.

Some more interesting numbers can be derived from the given reference:

$1.70 "now wind installation is now closer to $1700/kilowatt (nameplate)" ($/watt) (ref: mheslep)
5600000000 "a total capacity exceeding 5,600MW" (watts) (http://www.power-technology.com/projects/callahan/" )
$9,000,000,000 "with annual revenues of more than $9 billion".(ref1)
$9,520,000,000 initial total investment (ref1 capacity * $1.70/watt)
0.37 mheslep capacity factor(I searched your pdf reference for "37" and couldn't find it.)
8549 hrs/year
47,875,968,000 kwh/yr (=0.37*5.6GW*8549/1e6)
$0.19 $/kwh (=$9e9/47.9e9kwh)

So using your numbers and theirs, it would appear that they now have annual revenues slightly less than their total worst case investment. Perhaps their windmills ended up paying for themselves.

btw, that was an excellent reference you provided: www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf
248 pages of numbers. Pure Cheeto candy.

 

[rolerbe]

... I'm also convinced that one day, fusion will be a possible power source. The point is that this day is probably at least a century away from us:

With the current ITER approach, I believe you are right, or perhaps even optimistic. However, with a 10X increase in funding, I think this schedule can be cut in half. So, not $2B/yr, but $20B/yr. Less than a little local sand war, and way more important.

The best way to go, and cheaper in the long run, would be to have TWO projects. The only way to make fast progress in this world is to turn it into a competitive sport. Look at the atomic bomb program (easier, yes, but then they were computing on punch cards...), Man on the Moon, Human Genome sequencing, etc.

 

[LowlyPion]

Interesting article on the Wind Power industry in Spain.

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/

"In fact, wind supplied 10 percent of all Spanish electricity in 2007. On one record day, March 4, 2008, wind gusts sweeping the country provided 28 percent of the country’s total electricity."

 

[mheslep]

...
0.37 mheslep capacity factor(I searched your pdf reference for "37" and couldn't find it.)
...

Sorry for the trouble, here is a more direct reference:

Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2007
www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/43025.pdf
Figure 27, shows individual projects and average capacity factor in blue. Midwest 'heartland' projects averaged ~37% w/ a range of 29% to 48%. Note the two projects in Hawaii totalling 41MW averaged ~45%.

 

[mheslep]

Interesting article on the Wind Power industry in Spain.

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/

"In fact, wind supplied 10 percent of all Spanish electricity in 2007. On one record day, March 4, 2008, wind gusts sweeping the country provided 28 percent of the country’s total electricity."

Yes I saw that statement in the article; I am highly skeptical that it is true in any meaningful way. I think it is much more likely that the that Spain had enough wind turbines in place on that day that all the turbines theoretically could have delivered that much power, but instead Spain just spilled the excess. Transmission problems and the difficulties in just shutting off large fossil boiler plants would have prevented the Spanish grid from accepting so much additional power so quickly. I can not find any primary references in the article for the claim.

 

[LowlyPion]

Yes I saw that statement in the article; I am highly skeptical that it is true in any meaningful way. I think it is much more likely that the that Spain had enough wind turbines in place on that day that all the turbines theoretically could have delivered that much power, but instead Spain just spilled the excess. Transmission problems and the difficulties in just shutting off large fossil boiler plants would have prevented the Spanish grid from accepting so much additional power so quickly. I can not find any primary references in the article for the claim.

I am less sure about how much was spilled, because there seems to be a heavy emphasis on measuring and predicting energy contribution from the individual wind turbines and if the data from the readings from the wind generators is online as I believe, that could give Spain the ability to follow the progress of weather effects across the country and know that if wind was picking up on the west coast it would arrive in a few hours as contribution on the eastern generators. (A side benefit is that weather modeling now has a new data source for refining models.)

But the variability of wind generation ranges does point out an inherent problem - matching generation with weather predicting and loading. These problems will be of growing concern as the % contribution rises.

 

[dlgoff]

Yes I saw that statement in the article; I am highly skeptical that it is true in any meaningful way. I think it is much more likely that the that Spain had enough wind turbines in place on that day that all the turbines theoretically could have delivered that much power, but instead Spain just spilled the excess. Transmission problems and the difficulties in just shutting off large fossil boiler plants would have prevented the Spanish grid from accepting so much additional power so quickly. I can not find any primary references in the article for the claim.

Well, I'm thinking that the 28 percent was an instantaneous value.
Why do you think the energy was "spilled"? I don't know about Spain but here in the US, most electrical power companies make use of SCADA to get real-time data inorder to automatically control generator outputs.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, I'm thinking that the 28 percent was an instantaneous value.
Why do you think the energy was "spilled"? I don't know about Spain but here in the US, most electrical power companies make use of SCADA to get real-time data inorder to automatically control generator outputs.

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people. They will use electricity to desalinate water as well as during peak times of wind they will turn the excess into potential energy by pumping water up to a volcano crater lake for later use in reconverting it through turbines to electricity again. Imagine if they can set up a hydrogen based transportation network and convert fresh water and satisfy their energy needs, that could be a pretty sweet solution.

http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/p8.aspx

 

[taylaron]

I agree Pion

 

[vanesch]

If you read the article in detail it discusses a project in the Canaries in which their goal is to go 100% wind power on an island with 10,500 people.

Maybe the Canaries are especially windy, but what will they do when there's no wind for 5 consecutive days (say, in the centre of an anticyclone) ?

 

[vanesch]

Certainly controlled fusion is proving immensely difficult, but before calling controlled fission natural and easy, after the fact of its realization, it is instructive to recall: Einstein's quote.

That was because neutron-induced fission was not a known process at that time. In fact, it's kind of a miracle that this process happens exactly the way it does. If you think about it (I'm almost sounding like a creationist!), this reaction seems to be designed for chain reaction. Exactly the right amount of "spill neutrons" are released to be able to sustain a controlled thermal chain reaction, and moreover there is this amount of "retarded neutrons" by fission product decay which makes the whole thing controllable. Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Think of the following:
-lower amount of U-235 in natural uranium (half life shorter than it actually is, by say 20%): no chain reaction possible with natural uranium (hence, no demonstration of it before doing crazy things like isotope separation, and also no possibility of plutonium production).
-lower average number of released neutrons during fission: no chain reaction possible.
-higher capture cross section and lower fission cross section: no chain reaction possible.
-more symmetrical distribution of fission product masses: probably no retarded neutrons and hence no reactor possible (only a bomb)

All these parameters came out just right! And this wasn't known until 1938. The first people to find out were Meitner, Fermi, Joliot Curie, Otto Hahn, and Leo Szilard. Nobody could have predicted this reaction, it was an amazing and unexpected discovery, which was in fact so amazing that it took 5 years (from 1934 to 1939) to understand and accept it. People just didn't believe it in the beginning.

 

[mheslep]

That was because neutron-induced fission was not a known process at that time. In fact, it's kind of a miracle that this process happens exactly the way it does. If you think about it (I'm almost sounding like a creationist!), this reaction seems to be designed for chain reaction. Exactly the right amount of "spill neutrons" are released to be able to sustain a controlled thermal chain reaction, and moreover there is this amount of "retarded neutrons" by fission product decay which makes the whole thing controllable. Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Think of the following:
-lower amount of U-235 in natural uranium (half life shorter than it actually is, by say 20%): no chain reaction possible with natural uranium (hence, no demonstration of it before doing crazy things like isotope separation, and also no possibility of plutonium production).
-lower average number of released neutrons during fission: no chain reaction possible.
-higher capture cross section and lower fission cross section: no chain reaction possible.
-more symmetrical distribution of fission product masses: probably no retarded neutrons and hence no reactor possible (only a bomb)

All these parameters came out just right! And this wasn't known until 1938. The first people to find out were Meitner, Fermi, Joliot Curie, Otto Hahn, and Leo Szilard. Nobody could have predicted this reaction, it was an amazing and unexpected discovery, which was in fact so amazing that it took 5 years (from 1934 to 1939) to understand and accept it. People just didn't believe it in the beginning.

Great historical post - thanks.

 

[mheslep]

GM is working with the the electric utilities to smooth the way for their upcoming PHEVs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121669299205472651-email.html
GM Teams With Dozens Of Utilities on Plug-In Cars Collaboration Seeks To Smooth the Path For Electric Vehicles
By REBECCA SMITH and JOHN STOLL

...After more than a century of relying on gasoline as the main fuel for automobiles, GM and its rivals are scrambling to diversify energy sources. The Chevy Volt, due in late 2010, is intended to be the boldest effort yet, designed to run at full speed for at least 40 miles solely on lithium-ion batteries. Unless plugged in for a recharge, the gasoline engine kicks in at that point...

...At the most basic level, intelligence that will be embedded in the cars in the form of computer chips and software needs to be met with equal intelligence on the utility side. That way, a car that plugs into a garage electric outlet will be recognized as a car by the utility and recharged when it is best for the electric system and, perhaps, at a price that will be lower for cars than other appliances.

What utilities don't want is for cars to recharge during hot summer afternoons, when they could push wholesale electricity prices into a more expensive tier. Off-peak recharging actually could make the electric system more efficient by slightly increasing production at power plants with capacity to spare. Research shows there is enough excess electrical capacity at night to recharge tens of millions of vehicles...

...As utilities begin to confront the integration issues, they also are considering how much they want to encourage deployment . Austin Energy, a city-owned utility that serves the Texas capital, has decided to offer a $1,000 incentive to people who buy plug-in cars.

 

[BWV]

I am skeptical of any centralized solution as it will be inevitably comprimised by special interest groups even if the plan is good to begin with. However the problem is too complex and with too many technological wild cards such potential breakthroughs in PV technology for a big government solution to work. The gov can create incentives or at least level the subsidy playing field for clean energy sources but it cannot direct, Manhatten project style, a solution to the problem.

The main issue with BP's plan, which I had not seen addressed here is how you handle the peak power needs when you replace natural gas - which is primarily used for peak generation with wind, which is a base electric generator (and actually has its lowest output during hot afternoons when demand peaks).

Solar is the only feasible alternative to gas for peak generation and is quickly becoming competitive.

Fusion has consistently been 40 years away since the 1950s. There is still no way to create more energy than is consumed by the reactor. It would be foolish to give the technology anything more than token funding.

 

[mheslep]

I am skeptical of any centralized solution as it will be inevitably comprimised by special interest groups even if the plan is good to begin with. ...

What is centralized about the BP plan?

 

[russ_watters]

That is merely your opinion Ivan. I for one like to keep my hopes up. Still aim for that ultamate goal 'up in the sky'. (not offense)

Well, the part about fusion being a 40 year old promise is historical fact. Based on that fact logic would dictate that we cannot base a "now" energy policy on hope. It's fine to have hope and I think we should aggressively fund fusion research, but if we want to get off oil and coal, and we want to start now and make some real progress quickly, we need to do things now, not just hope for a breakthrough that we've already been hoping for for 40 years. That would be irresponsible.

 

[mheslep]

T Boone today on Capital Hill

His prepared opening statement:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/072208Pickens.pdf

C-span video
rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/energy/energy072208_initiatives.rm

Items he is asking for in the way support from the US Govt:
For Wind:

• Ten year extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind. Currently being extending 1 year at time. At the full build out of Pickens 20% / 200GW of Wind the total tax break is $15B/year (5 - 10 yrs from now or whenever that happens).
• Pass Senator Reid’s bill, S. 2076, which would provide for the identification of National Renewable Energy Zones.
• Siting Authority, for the substantial new transmission line capacity required. This could be tricky; the large Minn. line put in a few years ago had people shooting out tower insulators on a regular basis.
• Federal lands and permitting. Permission for transmission lines to cross.
• Equitable Cost Allocation and Recovery. Give FERC direction to spread the costs of the transmission lines.

For the CNG transportation switch:

• All Government vehicles run from CNG.

T Boone bites:

• GM makes 19 natural gas fueled vehicles, all made in S. America and EU.
• Paraphrasing: "People told me at breakfast this morning that wind is there only 40% of the time. Ok, I don't know, this is not my field, I'm a geologist. Baseload it with something, peak it with something"
• "Offshore wind, central part of the country wind, electric car, everything American is good. I'm for that. Offshore, OCS drilling, ANWR drilling, yes, all of it. I want to see all of it. I want to get off of foreign oil."
• "Natural gas is clean, abundant, affordable and, again, domestic. We have approximately 80 years supply of natural gas available to us from sources in North America. Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves., In fact, 98% of the natural gas consumed in the United States is produced in the US and Canada."
• ~90B barrels of offshore of 'in place' off the East / West coats. 'Im not a big believer ... I think you'll be surprised when those tracks [offshore US] are put up for sale.'
• Largest bus fleet in the world is Beijing. 4000. All CNG.

 

[mheslep]

US has become the #1 wind energy producer in the world per first half of 2008. Not the most nameplate, but the US has better wind thus more kWh. So far not even one offshore tower in the US mix.

US takes wind-power lead

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Published: July 22 2008 03:50 | Last updated: July 22 2008 03:50

The US rush into wind power has enabled the country to pass Germany to become the world’s biggest generator of such energy, according to estimates for the first half of 2008 from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

The US had not been expected to reach this milestone until the end of next year. It achieved this early, while still running behind Germany in total installed capacity, because its average wind speed in significantly stronger.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45827516-5767-11dd-916c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

 

[vanesch]

Change about any parameter of these natural processes a bit in the wrong direction, and controlled chain reaction is not possible. But GIVEN that this reaction exists in nature, it is "easy" to put it to work.

Sorry to be OT, but it even occurred to me that if we make chain reaction too easy, it wouldn't be possible either! Increase, say, the amount of U-235 (longer half life), increase the fission cross section, but especially, increase the number of neutrons per fission (say, 5 or 6 instead of 2.3), lower the capture cross section... and you would get a natural critical mass of say, a few grams, which would mean that all fission already occurred in nature: there wouldn't be any natural uranium left!
So the parameters of the fission reaction are tuned such, that it just doesn't occur spontaneously, but it does 'with a little help'.

 

[taylaron]

So what are you trying to conclude from that post? -what are you getting at?

 

[vanesch]

So what are you trying to conclude from that post? -what are you getting at?

That the analogy:
Early 30-ies: most if not all renowed scientists are extremely sceptical about any feasibility of ever one day using practical nuclear power
Manhattan: brilliant minds and unlimited budget
10 years later: nuclear bombs and reactors up and running,

doesn't work for fusion, which cannot count upon an unexpected and "almost designed on purpose" natural phenomenon that opens a backdoor, as was the case with neutron-induced fission, unless of course indeed some unexpected natural phenomenon is discovered in the coming years which would make fusion suddenly possible (think of erroneous "breakthroughs" like cold fusion). If no such unexpected breakthrough is discovered (and given that it is unexpected, we can't expect it, right ?), then fusion will be very difficult and will demand technology of serious complexity, which will not be "industrializable" on large scales very soon.

 

[mheslep]

That the analogy:
Early 30-ies: most if not all renowed scientists are extremely sceptical about any feasibility of ever one day using practical nuclear power
Manhattan: brilliant minds and unlimited budget
10 years later: nuclear bombs and reactors up and running,

doesn't work for fusion, which cannot count upon an unexpected and "almost designed on purpose" natural phenomenon that opens a backdoor, as was the case with neutron-induced fission, unless of course indeed some unexpected natural phenomenon is discovered in the coming years which would make fusion suddenly possible (think of erroneous "breakthroughs" like cold fusion). If no such unexpected breakthrough is discovered (and given that it is unexpected, we can't expect it, right ?), then fusion will be very difficult and will demand technology of serious complexity, which will not be "industrializable" on large scales very soon.

Well very generally I agree it doesn't make sense to 'Manhattan' ITER fusion since, yes, there isn't yet some newly discovered phenomenon that promises big returns if explored and understood a little better. That is, doing a crash fusion project now would be akin to trying Manhattan fission before 1932 and Chadwick's neutron - likely would have gone nowhere after spending vast sums and repeating Madam Curie's radiation induced death numerous times.

That said: 'unexpected ... discover[y]'?? I think you are still placing fission on a shaky pedestal w/ the 'natural' description. Fusion in stellar cores is natural enough.[1] I think one can only say the particulars of a fissile chain reaction happen to be such that they reveal themselves with much less trouble than ... whatever process might make fusion successful.

[1] For the usual refrain in these fusion/fission discussions: Yes I know the Solar core P-P power density is useless for a terrestrial power reactor, thankfully, or the Sun would have winked out long ago. Neither is there a load of enriched Uranium hiding under some mountain, for the same reason.