Let’s go nuclear - the answer to our energy needs is obvious: cheap and reliable nuclear power

The Spectator ^

[BritishBulldog]

But before we can embrace a sane future we have to overcome the Cold War superstitions of the Green Left

I am not sure whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that there is almost no oil left anywhere in the world. Out of a sort of childish spite, one is obviously delighted that soon enough countries like Saudi Arabia will have nothing with which to hold the world to ransom. And nothing has caused more environmental damage to our planet than the consumption of hydrocarbons (except maybe that comet which allegedly wiped out the dinosaurs). On the other hand, I am not sure that I wish my children to experience a rapid return to the Stone Age — which will be their future unless we begin to wean ourselves off both oil and, indeed, gas. And with governments perpetually disinclined to look to the medium term — let alone the long term — it is difficult to see how that weaning process will be induced....

Big snip - long article, please click link to read

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old&section=current&issue=2004-08-21&id=4922

[RocketWolf]

Odd isn't it..the future of the nation decided by a 1954 movie about giant ants.

[Gorjus]

Actually, if you have the energy from nuclear plants, it becomes practical to produce hydrogen fuel for applications that require small mobile power sources.

True. However, the energy density of hydrogen is very poor relative to gasoline. To get an equivalent range, you'd need to fill up the trunk and back seat of a typical car with hydrogen tanks. I think hydrogen fuel will work very well for trains, trucks, and perhaps even airliners (anywhere volume is not constrained), but not for smaller personal transportation.

Nonetheless, I should have recognized the potential for nuclear power to create hydrogen for at least some of our mobile energy needs. It's another reason to pursue it.

[Gorjus]

The nuclear power is used to produce hydrogen fuel for automobiles. ... The oil produced here is needed for diesel fuel and jet fuel. Those applications cannot use hydrogen.

Actually, I think you have that backward. Large applications, like trucks and ships that use diesel fuel, or airliners are the best application for hydrogen fuel. It has a very poor energy density. As I said in another post, to get equivalent range in a typical car, you'd need to fill up the trunk and back seat with hydrogen tanks. Space is not as constrained on larger applications like truck and airliners.

In fact, there was a study done several years ago about a hydrogen fueled airliner. They looked at a then-active L-1011. The tanks would have filled up the first third of the cabin, but it would have showed positive economic numbers even with the resultant fewer passengers, if the hydrogen infrastructure were in place. (And stretching the fuselage would have been practical as well - see DC-8 Super 63 for how far that can go.) I don't remember the exact date of the article, but it was in 'Aviation Week and Space Technology' if you want to look it up.

Nonetheless, the only viable way to product hydrogen is with nuclear power - and it's a good one. Another reason for pursuing nuclear power.

[Gorjus]

Cold fusion - I still have never gotten an answer from anyone on what the energy spectrum was.

In essence, that was the thrust behind my 'anti-gravity' comment. It takes a great deal of pressure and temperature to induce fusion. To that extent, fusion is never 'cold.' However, if we could find some way to compress the fuel (recognizing that the fuel not likely to be simple hydrogen any more than a thermonuclear bomb is simple hydrogen for the fusion stages) it might be possible to induce fusion in an environment that is at room temperature outside a fairly small apparatus. Unfortunately, that sort of 'force field' or 'anti-gravity' containment is beyond us right now.

But, for the energy-balance things you're talking about, I don't see any valid scientific basis for inducing fusion through catalysts or electrical anode devices. That's like using sails to power a supersonic airplane. The energy required for nuclear reactions is orders of magnitude higher than electrical/chemical reactions can provide.

[Publius6961]

Another "registered only" news site?

No thank you.
I already receive more than my share of spam.

[Publius6961]

I think the fuel of the future will be Hydrogen, once we can obtain it cheaply enough.

This statement is right up there with my version:

I think that perpetual motion will be the fuel of the future, once we unlock its secret.
"Faith" and "hope" may be virtues, but have no place in science, specially for a critical long term issue like energy.

Nuclear is the only viable option for the forseeable future, and its implementation cannot be set in place overnight. Think France...

[Publius6961]

Now we need to demonstrate those designs can be turned into commercial power plants, while retaining the theoretical cost reductions.

There is nothing "theoretical" about the cost reductions. The only thing that has made the cost prohibitive to date has been the delaying tactics of the clueless "greens", and the regulatory result of the neurotic fear of the word "nuclear".
More people have been killed by Ted Kennedy's driving than by nuclear power in the United States.

[Publius6961]

The post after yours stating that H2 is a transfer medium is NOT understood by the average person.

The alternative fuel morons are not average.
The average person, once it's explained properly, can understand the concepts of entropy, and efficiency. That one can never get more energy out of anything than initially goes in.

"Free" energy from hydrogen is the certain sign of a scientific ignoramus.

[Publius6961]

or perhaps some wind power in states where it is feasible.

There is no state where it's feasible, unless you consider power at 5 times the cost and as an erratic unreliable and non-scheduled basis "feasible".

Contrary to the delusions of the dope-smoking crowd, windmills are not maintenance free. They are in fact constant high maintenance.

[RockinRight]

So, nuclear power, with cars and such still using gasoline?

There is a difference. Hydrogen has and can be used, but perpetual motion is an impossibility that cannot be achieved.

[Publius6961]

An electric car set a record of 65.79 mph on April 29, 1899. That was INCREDIBLY FAST - for 1899! No gasoline car came close!
Hate to break this to you but this isn't 1899. Did you fail to notice that electric cars failed to become the predominant means of private transportation? There are many reasons for that, most of them still quite applicable today.

Ever ridden on MARTA, in Atlanta? Electric power can be delivered to a vehicle WITHOUT a storage medium,,,
Whatever that is I am confident that if we could all afford $300,000 vehicles (or is it $3 million?) we could dispense with the commoner transportation of choice. Let's get real here.

[Publius6961]

So, nuclear power, with cars and such still using gasoline?

No.
As mentioned often in this thread, the only hope of future cheap hydrogen is nuclear power. So no, they are not mutually exclusive

Were you aware that 50% of all electrical power generated by whatever means is lost in transmission? I don't know how that relates to the inefficiency of producing hydrogen, but it's worth a look.

However, dealing with hydrogen tanks on vehicles which have over 60,000 traffic deaths a year is a sobering side issue.

[Publius6961]

but perpetual motion is an impossibility that cannot be achieved.

Wasn't this universal conventional wisdom at one time about flying?

[RockinRight]

Perhaps.

OK, before I dig myself into a deeper hole and lose all credibility, I am not an engineer and perhaps was speaking out of what I know, which, frankly, isn't all that much.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I assume someone is making a profit or they wouldn't be there.

Wind power can generate electricity. But I believe there was a large subsidy available when those wind farms were built. You don't see them increasing anywhere do you? Has electricity gone out of fashion?

The truth is that nuclear power will be a good source of electricity to power transit systems, separate H2 from water or fosil fuels, and reduce the usage of oil. Political problems with nuclear power are largely phony, else France and Germany would disown it. Rockin is correct that these alternative energy systems will be used where they fit and are economically viable. And the time is not yet come, but if oil prices keep climbing, it will before long.

[G Larry]

Your position has more merit than you might have intended.

Get back on track for fusion reactors.

The combination of nuclear & hydrogen power.

[JATO]

Excellent point. That brings up another point that with unlimited nuclear energy, it is possible to build higher density fuels using hydrogen as the active ingredient. The Germans produced excellent "petrol" from coal. Once we have the energy, it's possible to produce almost any required form. The reason for my statement about diesel and jet fuel is exactly as you stated... the energy density of those fuels makes them much more practical than H2 for heavy transport and flight. The US has adequate reserves for providing those needs. If we get rid of the need for automobile gasoline, we import NO FOREIGN OIL AT ALL. That's the key!

The U.S. imports 5 million barrels per day of OPEC oil.
Total oil Imports account for about $1 Billion per week.

U.S. refineries require 15 million barrels per day – 8 million for gasoline alone.

Eliminating gasoline could eliminate all OPEC imports with 3 million barrels to spare

[JATO]

Excellent point. That brings up another point that with unlimited nuclear energy, it is possible to build higher density fuels using hydrogen as the active ingredient. The Germans produced excellent "petrol" from coal. Once we have the energy, it's possible to produce almost any required form. The reason for my statement about diesel and jet fuel is exactly as you stated... the energy density of those fuels makes them much more practical than H2 for heavy transport and flight. The US has adequate reserves for providing those needs. If we get rid of the need for automobile gasoline, we import NO FOREIGN OIL AT ALL. That's the key!

The U.S. imports 5 million barrels per day of OPEC oil.
Total oil Imports account for about $1 Billion per week.

U.S. refineries require 15 million barrels per day – 8 million for gasoline alone.

Eliminating gasoline could eliminate all OPEC imports with 3 million barrels to spare