preferred new sources of power

[azdiver 0]

witch sources of energy do you think the U.S should pursue as the main sources and why.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[billvon 3,116]

You can't fuse plutonium. Did you mean breeder fission reactors? Or did you mean deuterium fusion? (which is generally deuterium-tritium fusion since that's easier to ignite)

[azdiver 0]

Quote

You can't fuse plutonium. Did you mean breeder fission reactors? Or did you mean deuterium fusion? (which is generally deuterium-tritium fusion since that's easier to ignite)

your right i was thinking one thing and typing another, it should be uranium and a breeder , it makes plutonium though as a waste product.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[flyinchicken 0]

I've been partial too an idea I stumbled across a few years ago, using both wind and solar completely erradicating everything else. Makes sense, methinks. However, a scientist I am NOT

"Diligent observation leads to pure abstraction". Lari Pittman

[azdiver 0]

care to elaborate

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[1969912 0]

Quote

your right i was thinking one thing and typing another, it should be uranium and a breeder , it makes plutonium though as a waste product.

Actually, the Plutonium 239 produced by a breeder reactor is not a waste product, but is the new fuel that the reactor "breeds". More than 99% of the earth's Uranium ore is U-238, which is not fissionable, and useless a a reactor fuel. U-235, which comprises <1% of ore, is the isotope used in nearly all power generating reactors, but is an expensive and finite resource. In a breeder, U-238 is placed within a specially designed reactor core, and as the reactor is operated (generating power) neutrons are absorbed by the U-238, transmuting it into Pu-239. The Pu-239, which IS fissionable, is removed and used to power other reactors.

Breeders are my vote, but the US breeder program was killed in the 70's, and the primary research facility (FFTF) is being dismantled as we speak. Bummer.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[lawrocket 3]

Preferred now or in the future? Right now Nuclear. Slowly moving toward solar since solar can be fitted onto existing structures.

Wind is nice but is practical only in limited places.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

witch sources of energy do you think the U.S should pursue as the main sources and why.

Magic.

Barring that, my criteria would be that it's non-polluting and infintely renewable.

Solar would be my answer, but we don't have good storage solutions.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,116]

>it should be uranium and a breeder , it makes plutonium though as a waste product.

And one of the cool things about a breeder is that it can also USE plutonium as a fuel, after the fuel created is reprocessed. It's not a closed cycle of course but is more efficient than your typical LWR. (light water reactor; all US commercial plants are LWR's.) On the down side the engineering challenges are much greater (read: not quite as safe given the same level of effort.)

Trivia - all reactors are breeders to some extent. Near the end of life of a LWR fuel element, more power is coming from plutonium fission than U-235 fission.

Trivia #2 - LWR's can use plutonium fuel. It's called MOX (mixed oxide fuel; contains both uranium and plutonium.) MOX can also be made from LWR spent fuel; it's a good way to reprocess fuel. It's also a good way to recycle unused nuclear weapon pits.

I'd add a few more options to that list though:

HTGR's (modular high temp gas reactors.) Useful for making hydrogen too; inherently safer. Lower power density.

CANDU reactors. Canadian heavy water reactors. Can use natural uranium! No enrichment required. It can also use used-up LWR fuel elements with no reprocessing. On the minus side it needs heavy water, which doesn't have to be replaced but is expensive.

[quade 4]

Quote

And one of the cool things about a breeder is that it can also USE plutonium as a fuel . . .

As I recall, the plutonium can also be used for nefarious purposes. Wasn't that the main objection both in domestic and foreign use?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,116]

>As I recall, the plutonium can also be used for nefarious purposes.

Well, yeah, but so can U-235.

[quade 4]

Quote

>As I recall, the plutonium can also be used for nefarious purposes.

Well, yeah, but so can U-235.

I think the difference being that a few ounces of U-235 being stolen might be an inconvenience and that a few ounces of plutonium being stolen is a MAJOR ISSUE; dirty bomb-wise.

Or am I incorrect in my beliefs?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[1969912 0]

Quote

I think the difference being that a few ounces of U-235 being stolen might be an inconvenience and that a few ounces of plutonium being stolen is a MAJOR ISSUE; dirty bomb-wise.

Or am I incorrect in my beliefs?

The big concern about Pu was weapons proliferation (fission bombs made from diverted material). Nowadays "dirty bombs" are a concern, but it would take pounds of Pu to make even a marginally effective dirty bomb, and even then the effect would mostly be psychological. See:

http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 23]

I voted for all of them. Other being drilling in Anwar, the Gulf and the rockies

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Most of those are not new sources.

That nit aside, we do need to keep working on developing safe, clean, renewable (or more accurately non-depleteable) energy sources. The fossil fuels will eventually be gone. Maybe not as fast as the doomsayers claim, but not that far into the future. Probably within our kids lifetimes, fossil fuel consuming engines will become obsolete.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[flyinchicken 0]

This is a study I found showing the benefits of a solar/wind hybrid system proposed to the Island of St Martins. There are some "greenies" who believe this can and will be the power system of the future. Size and amount of electricity generated are the road blocks in the way at this point in the game. For now, these systems are being sold in rural areas.

http://www.lged-rein.org/solar/solar_sre_stmartins.htm

and man i'm just having my first coffee of the day and ur makin me think.

"Diligent observation leads to pure abstraction". Lari Pittman

[billvon 3,116]

>I think the difference being that a few ounces of U-235 being stolen
>might be an inconvenience and that a few ounces of plutonium being
>stolen is a MAJOR ISSUE; dirty bomb-wise.

I don't think so. By far the worst material to get for dirty bombs (and the most readily available) are spent nuclear fuel rods. They are chock full of nasty long-lived radioisotopes created by neutron bombardment of the fuel. (Compared to new fuel which isn't even very radioactive; it's only about 4% U-235.)

The easiest (read: most likely for terrorists to be able to accomplish) nuclear weapon possible involves firing a round of U-235 into a block of U-235. It's how our first nuclear weapon worked; the design is so reliable that they never even tested it before they used it. They knew it would work.

Plutonium cannot be used in a gun-type weapon, though; it needs to be used in an implosion-type core. These are VERY hard to build, and will fail for the silliest of reasons (like the neutron source degrading or failing to fire at the proper microsecond.)

[azdiver 0]

i meant new in a sense as to replace what is existing. replacing out of date technology with newer more reliable or more powerful. most of these have been around for a long time but newer technology is making them a viable option where before they were limited in their capabilities.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[azdiver 0]

new as in what should replace the existing sources, mainly coal and gas

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[skinnyflyer 0]

i vote solar because its completely renewable and emission free, it can be used in many places especially on site and it has the potential to be very cheap in the futur.

lets not forget that nuclear isn't sustainable. supply problems, serious security and disposal issues.

didn't those breeder reactors have all kinds of problems and not work properly at all?

that being said i think we're going to need a lot of new nuclear power in the face of peak oil but we shouldn't aim to have it as our main power source.

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[skinnyflyer 0]

Quote

...The fossil fuels will eventually be gone. Maybe not as fast as the doomsayers claim, but not that far into the future. Probably within our kids lifetimes...

the IEA's lattest report contains three scenarios; low growth, medium and high growth and all 3 have demand overtaking supply in 2011 and before. this is a very serious admission;(the first graph is IEA)

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2805/20070713nelder713wp0.jpg

(other);

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/1293/discoveriessf5cp3.jpg

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3561/worldoverview4mc5.jpg

"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives."
A. Sachs

[azdiver 0]

there are several that are completely renewable, wind, solar, water current turbines(ny city has a couple in the rivers already). but dont discount the others.
the big problem with todays nuclear system is the waste not the fuel supply, breeders would go along way with reducing that.
fusion using helium3 has a good supply. its just retrieving that supply that is somewhat problematic.
fusion using deuterium and tritium, for deuterium the supply is readily available, tritium on the other had is hard to come by. but breeders produce tritium. tritium also produces helium3 as it decays.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[squarecanopy 0]

Quote

witch sources of energy do you think the U.S should pursue as the main sources and why.

One thing that keeps coming up, talking with people I meet who work in the electrical power provider industry here in the USA is that actually switching over to alternative power sources is going to be tough due to something I had not considered and it is this- to build an alternative power plant to power a city we would have to build the alternative plant and also continue to operate the existing coal/gas fired plant of the same kilowatt output capacity for the times when the production of the alternative plant goes below the needs of the city. These other sources of power are not at this time steady enough to provide the high quality (steady voltage, current and frequency) uninterrupted power that we now enjoy here in the USA, so both plants will have to be up and running at all times, for the foreseeable future until the reliability problems are solved.

Just burning a hole in the sky.....

[azdiver 0]

Quote

Quote

witch sources of energy do you think the U.S should pursue as the main sources and why.

One thing that keeps coming up, talking with people I meet who work in the electrical power provider industry here in the USA is that actually switching over to alternative power sources is going to be tough due to something I had not considered and it is this- to build an alternative power plant to power a city we would have to build the alternative plant and also continue to operate the existing coal/gas fired plant of the same kilowatt output capacity for the times when the production of the alternative plant goes below the needs of the city. These other sources of power are not at this time steady enough to provide the high quality (steady voltage, current and frequency) uninterrupted power that we now enjoy here in the USA, so both plants will have to be up and running at all times, for the foreseeable future until the reliability problems are solved.

with the advancement of new technologies in theses ares though their reliability would greatly increase. i think if one source was decided on to be the major producer and then use the alternatives as supplemental to that source it would allow the current sources to be shut down. but this would still take awhile to get it up and running

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[billvon 3,116]

>to build an alternative power plant to power a city we would have to build
>the alternative plant and also continue to operate the existing coal/gas
>fired plant of the same kilowatt output capacity for the times when the
>production of the alternative plant goes below the needs of the city.

Not really. Two reasons:

1) Solar is inherently a "peaking" source. Its output is highest on sunny summer days when demand is highest. If it gets cloudy, demand goes down.

2) We are rapidly moving into real time TOU metering and remote load shedding. If you use wind (for example) loads like pool pumps and water transfer pumps go off-line, then go back on-line when demand drops and excess capacity is available.

>These other sources of power are not at this time steady enough to
>provide the high quality (steady voltage, current and frequency) . . .

That's completely wrong. The solar inverter on my house provides higher quality power than the power I get from the grid. Indeed, it will sometimes trip off-line because voltage or frequency from the utility will vary a bit - and it is designed to be quite conservative in that respect.