Nuclear Energy: The Only Solution

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | September 28, 2009 | Frank J. Tipler

[HangThemHigh]

"The obvious solution is to use the nukes to supply power through the grid to electrically powered mass-transit systems (high-speed rail, light rail and maglev)."

So you want us all to move back into the cities? That is the only way I can see that mass transit would work on a wide scale. The automobile allowed the creation of the suburbs, now the suburbs will make it very hard to get rid of the automobile.

This solution also implies a large investment in the grid to handle vast amounts of power for mass transportation on a grid that is very close to capacity now on very hot or cold days.

Using nuclear energy to create "artificial gasoline" admittedly is not an elegant solution, but it would allow you to put a gasoline generation plant near a nuclear facility and save load on the grid. On the downside, there is zero chance a liberal will ever vote for this.

There are no easy alternatives here.

[cpforlife.org]

But look at all that evil radiation going up into the sky! Clearly that evil radiation will settle down on minority areas!

Oh the huge manatee!

[listenhillary]

Nuclear Desalination

There is no better way to use the waste heat than this application.

I wonder if building them below sea level would ever be an option. Prohibitively expensive to build? Safer? I don't know.

Pumping fresh water and electricity into the cities that ring our coastlines. It would be nice to extract as much heat as possible with the desalination process so as to not pump too much heat into the ocean.

[Willie Green]

So you want us all to move back into the cities? That is the only way I can see that mass transit would work on a wide scale.

Our cities are expanding anyway.
Even suburbia is getting more crowded than ever.

Population of the United States
1930 - 122 million
1940 - 132 million
1950 - 150 million
1960 - 179 million
1970 - 203 million
1980 - 226 million
1990 - 248 million
2000 - 281 million
2010 - 309 million (estimate)

[Kevmo]

The future of nuclear is cold fusion.

Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2270920/posts
Friday, June 12, 2009 11:25:41 PM · by Kevmo · 27 replies · 1,027+ views
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0612/0612201v2.pdf ^ | Reginald T. Cahill

The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2266921/posts
Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:50:26 PM · by Kevmo · 78 replies · 1,626+ views
Suppressed Science.Net ^ | 12/06/08 | http://www.suppressedscience.net/

The End of Snide Remarks Against Cold Fusion
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2265914/posts
Friday, June 05, 2009 5:56:08 PM · by Kevmo · 95 replies · 1,770+ views
Free Republic, Gravitronics.net and Intrade ^ | 6/5/09 | kevmo, et al

‘Cold Fusion’ Rebirth? New Evidence For Existence Of Controversial Energy Source
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2212864/posts
Monday, March 23, 2009 12:42:14 PM · by FlameThrower · 35 replies · 1,586+ views
Science Daily ^ | Mar. 23, 2009 | American Chemical Society

[Wonder Warthog]

"Sorry, but that's just wrong. There is no such thing as 'watts in the wall', except at the final wall. There's a big cost to transporting energy at low voltages, and another big cost to combining lots of small generators into a big flow."

Malarkey. A 500MW solar thermal plant is in no way different from a 500MW nuclear plant to the "end user" as far as the "density" of the power is concerned. 500MW is 500MW. Any "tranmission" issues are completely identical, because the actual gizmo that cranks out the watts is exactly the same for both plants---a steam turbine.

The only point you raise that has any validity is the one about "NIMBY", which is right on target. If you "had" raised the issue of "cost to implement", you would have had a second valid point, but, as with any other technology, an increased demand and mass production of parts will bring the price down.

[Vaduz]

Yet still no flies on 3 mile island.

[slowhandluke]

I was thinking more about the windmills or solar cell than the more concentrated forms of solar. You are right about the solar thermal, once you get to hi-temp/hi-efficiency generation, 500MW plants are all alike for transmission/distribution effects.

Increased demand won't change the fact that you need a good sunny location and a bit of area for any solar plant. Siting the solar/thermal plants in Arizona doesn't do much good for Montana, if you let me bring up those pesky transmission issues again.

I haven't followed solar/thermal technology, so maybe they can build them in Montana, but I'd doubt that it work too well in the Montana winter.

[Brett66]

The US has enough oil to supply all of it’s needs. The real problem is the cartel of environmentalists that work with corporations and politicians to make laws that create supply shortages so all of the players in their corrupt racket profit.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Increased demand won't change the fact that you need a good sunny location and a bit of area for any solar plant. Siting the solar/thermal plants in Arizona doesn't do much good for Montana, if you let me bring up those pesky transmission issues again."

Actually, solar thermal plants will work quite nicely in Montana. You just need more collector area. Summer/winter have very little to do with it, as long as you have sufficient days with clear skies. I live in Western Washington (west of the Cascades), and it's cloudy here for many days out of the year. But right across the mountains EAST of the Cascades, we have a "rain shadow desert" around Yakima and Hanford, that has high insolation most of the days of the year (300 clear days/year in Yakima), and in easy transmission distance to the population centers.

"I haven't followed solar/thermal technology, so maybe they can build them in Montana, but I'd doubt that it work too well in the Montana winter."

I didn't follow solar/thermal for a long time, either (too low tech for my taste), but right now, it looks like much the best long-term bet. Windmills are WAY too variable, with unpredictable variability. Solar varies too, but the variability is largely predictable, and can be "built in" for the specific location. And with the new addition of "thermal storage", solar CAN "do it all".

I think the coming option will be a solar thermal/natural gas hybrid system, with the percentage of each resource used depending on local conditions.

Don't get me wrong. I would FAR prefer the nuclear option. But if we aren't allowed to do that, we do NOT have to give up a "high-energy" civilization. The entire energy usage of the United states can be collected with two plots of land, 100 miles by 100 miles (and that includes day/night and seasonal variability, and a collection efficiency equaling today's solar thermal plants). Of course, any such system would actually be built of many smaller units.

If I were designing such a system, I would make the highway system (especially the Interstates) the "transmission grid". Start at I-10 in Los Angeles, and every 100 miles (or half the distance between population centers if less than 100 miles), start building solar power plants. Run the transmission lines along the highway rights of way. Expand the system eastward along I-10, and then north as mass production drives down the cost of mirrors.

This also fixes the problem of energy for transportation, whether that turns out to be electric battery cars, or hydrogen fuel cell cars. And it also fixes the "transmission" problem.

Heinlein predicted something like this in his short story "The Rolling Roads". In this case, the roads wouldn't actually roll, but they WOULD be solar powered, as they were in his story.