In a prior thread, it was proposed that nuclear fission can evolve into
an acceptable solution to our future energy needs using LENR as the key
advancement.
There is a compelling case for the proposition that a new and improved
small-scale fission device - using mass-produced modules re-engineered
as subcritical (using non-enriched fuel) can be as clean as say - wind
energy at half the cost or less ... If... that is, the virtual neutron
is real. Cheap neutrons permit breeding fissile fuel from natural U and
burning waste at the same time . Experimental replication of the neutron
experiment here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0608229
The fission implementation is based on the same large dose of optimism
as is LENR but there is a partially-proved hypothesis - that simple
microwave techniques will produce virtual neutrons which are reactive
with fissile isotopes. If you buy into that ... and the literature is
impressive, then subcritical nuclear fission may be among the best ways
to proceed, even better than Pd-D cold fusion itself. Fission is "almost
renewable" (million year supply with ocean mining and breeding) and
clean in the sense of burning its own waste, requiring little inventory
at the start, with no toxic release during operation.
Wind energy is starting to make a useful contribution in the big
picture, and that is a good thing, but make no mistake, wind is not
entirely clean. The silly argument about bird-kill is specious, but the
argument about hidden coal usage is serious. These facts are often
glossed over by promoters but any fool can see the implication of an
array of turbines mounted on heavy steel columns with deep concrete
bases and thousands of towers required to produce GWhrs. In fact, Wind
requires more steel by far (per unit of energy produced) than any other
options.
The problem is unavoidable because making steel and concrete both
require lots of coal, and typically that coal is in its dirtiest,
cheapest form. Steel production represents hidden, up-front pollution in
large quantities. Coal, gas or nuclear also use steel and concrete as
structural materials, but a factor of 200 times less of it, when
compared to actual electrical output. DoE has all the data confirming this.
On average, wind requires about 200 times as much steel and concrete
structural material as a natural gas turbine plant of the same capacity.
Factoid: a two-megawatt (faceplate) wind turbine weighs about 250 tons
(or more), including the tower, nacelle, generator housing and blades,
but it only works near full capacity about 40% of the time. It requires
about half a ton of coal to make a ton of steel. Add another 25 tons of
coal used in making the cement to secure the tower against strong gales
- and in the end, you’re talking 150 tons of coal used per real MWhr of
capacity for the structure. And the ash from the coal used to make the
wind turbine is more radioactive than nuclear waste - see:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
This argument may be overblown for effect, but it makes the point that
wind energy is not totally clean and other alternative could be
acceptable due to lower cost. Nuclear fission (new and improved) has a
chance to become the real clean-machine of future energy "if" LENR is
incorporated as the source of cheap neutrons. With a modular fission
design incorporating a natural U fuel target irradiated by virtual
neutrons, direct conversion and a cycle where waste is burned in in
situ, along with breeding - fission would definitely be a contender ...
Fukushima notwithstanding.
Ironically, the big promoters of Wind energy these days are steel mills,
concrete factories and the Sierra Club - strange bedfellows.
