I wholeheartedly agree!
Of all the nuclear (power generation) capable nations, the U.S. is the only
nation to NOT re-process its spent fuel.
The irony is that the U.S. pioneered that technology in the late 1960s, but
because of a knee-jerk reaction to the Iranian hostage crisis during the
Carter administration, we chose to store spent fuel instead. Sadly, we've
never really corrected that mistake in almost 30 years, nor have we built a
new nuclear reactor in that same period of time.
Of course, that's about to change with the advent of a new generation 3+
modular reactors that have already received the blessing of the NRC here in
the States.
Also, have you been following the development of *Inertial Electrostatic
Confinement (IEC) fusion* work surrounding the *Polywell* reactor (creation
of the late Dr. Robert Bussard) from EMC2 in New Mexico or the *Dense Plasma
Focus Fusion* reactor *("Focus Fusion") by Dr. Eric Lerner* from
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in New Jersey?
IEC fusion is completely ANEUTRONIC, and uses a proton-Boron11 isotope
(p-B11) fuel to drive the reaction. Of course, Deuterium-Deuterium (D-D) or
Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) fuel can be used as well, but again, p-B11 produces
no neutrons and is an incredibly abundant fuel. Also, it *generates DC
electricity directly from nuclear reactions*.
p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV
Likewise, Helium-4, the most abundant of the two naturally-occurring
isotopes of helium, makes up about 99.99% of the helium on Earth. As a
byproduct of this reaction, it could supply the large quanities required
by industry.
There is *NO heat transfer* required to boil water, create steam, and
commutate a conventional electrical generator. In other words, there is no
electromechanical energy conversion, as is used today - no spinning of a
steam turbine or electrical generator, no moving parts.
So, in addition to the abundance of oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium
(required for fission reactors), *the advent of fusion will only hasten the
decline of solar and wind*. Solar and wind, *except for niche applications*,
will "*die on the vine"*, so to speak.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM, John M. Steele <[email protected]
> wrote:
> Realistically, the uranium should last long enough for us to figure out
> controlled fusions (hundreds to a few thousand years).
>
> This will be especially true if we reprocess fuel rods (which are now
> mostly wasted). The present design requires them to be removed when only a
> few percent of the fissionable material has been fissioned). We refuse to
> allow reprocessing because some of the U-238 has been converted to
> fissionable plutonium, and the reprocessed rod would be a MOX (mixed oxide)
> fuel rod.
>
> Yet we specifically made and used MOX rods from Russian (bomb grade)
> plutonium to get it off the market.
> --- On *Fri, 10/23/09, [email protected] <[email protected]>*wrote:
>
>
> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
> Subject: [USMA:46052] Re: Treatise on renewable energy
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> Date: Friday, October 23, 2009, 12:23 PM
>
>
> OK, then, tell us what we do when all the coal and oil is burned up. And
> even uranium is finite. What then? Humanity does intend to stay around for
> more than the next 100-200 years.
>
> Carleton
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Edgar Warf" <[email protected]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:53:05 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [USMA:46051] Re: Treatise on renewable energy
>
> Wind and Solar - they’re expensive. They’re unreliable. And most
> importantly, their power output is pathetically low.
>
> Solar and Wind are a *“fool’s errand”* for anything *except niche
> applications*. They’ll never suffice for base-load generation. Here is
> what a mechanical engineer (in the wind power industry) had to say about the
> matter:
>
>
>
> *I am a mechanical engineer and quite knowledgeable about wind power and
> the reliability problems. They are many!*
>
> **
>
> *Wind power has a longer history in the EU, but the experience has been
> similar. Wind power has been subsidized in the EU for longer than it has
> here in the states. The results have been similar. Power from wind
> turbines is more expensive that the more traditional sources (coal, gas,
> hydroelectric, nuclear and oil). The only way that it becomes viable is with
> government subsidies.*
>
> **
>
> *In the EU, turbines cannot be installed without monitoring system to
> watch their health. This is due to the many failures that have occurred.
> They cannot operate without insurance and the insurance is unavailable
> without monitoring. Here in the states, very few turbines are installed with
> monitoring.*
>
> **
>
> *Why?** Simple. Turbines here are normally owned by investor groups that
> exist primarily to market the tax credits. The total cost of the turbine
> can be recouped in 3-5 years with these credits. The investor groups
> contract with the turbine manufacturers to install and operate the turbines
> for the 5 year warrantee period. By the time that the warrantee has
> expired, the turbines are paid for and any further running time is pure
> gravy. When they fail, shut them down and there is no loss. <<…to the
> investor groups.>>*
>
> **
>
> *Except, of course, to the tax payers that support this scam**.*
>
>
>
> The last sentence was the money quote. I would imagine this situation
> (the proposed subsidization of Solar) will be very much the same as is it
> for Wind when it (Solar) gets into full swing
>
> - Wind is $0.07/kWh, subsidized
> - Wind is $0.12/kWh, unsubsidized (without the $0.05/kWh *Production
> Tax Credit*)
>
> The numbers for Solar are deplorable – $0.22/kWh (unsubsidized).
>
> Keep in mind that* consumers (in the U.S.) are presently paying *between $0.10
> to $0.12 per kWh for residential electricity. Even utilizing the
> "printing press" method of fabrication, with a 100% reduction in price, will
> only get Solar down to $0.11/kWh - far too high from today's price point.
>
> What's worse is the energy density (or footprint) associated with solar -
> that is, *kW per square meter*. Wind certainly has a higher energy
> density (per square meter) than solar at approximately *0.63 kW per square
> meter* (90 m diameter blade sweep and 4 MW turbine), but it's not getting
> the job done, and never will.
>
>
>
> Now, imagine what a nightmare solar will be, if we attempt to supplant
> Nuclear and Coal for base-load generation.
>
>
>
> By the way, I was being generous with those wind turbine numbers, as *4 MW
> turbines are fourth generation, and are considered the maximum electrical
> output available for land-based turbines*.
>
>
>
> Marine-based wind turbines aren't much better at 3 MW to 5 MW in size. For
> your convenience, I've included a brochure (in PDF format) from Vestas (a
> global wind turbine supplier) whose largest offering is a 3 MW turbine, but
> like I said, I was being generous giving Wind a whopping 0.63 kW per
> square meter rating. Sarcasm can be really tough to convey in text.
>
>
> So, a little more background information is needed:
>
>
>
> The Earth receives energy from the Sun, at the upper atmosphere, of
> approximately 1.37 kW per square meter. The actual amount of solar
> irradiance reaching *Earth's surface* (dependent upon weather conditions
> and latitude) is approximately *1 kW per square meter* - an easy number to
> remember. That's all there is - nothing more.
>
>
>
> *Even if we could convert all photonic energy into electrical energy,*we're
> only going to get
> *1 kW per square meter.*
>
>
>
> So, where do we stand today? That sound you hear is the sound of the
> other shoe falling.
>
>
>
> *We can only convert 30% of this to electricity* (or *0.3 kW = 300 W per
> square meter*). To reach that 30% mark, it's taken us almost 45 years,
> and even if we doubled efficiency (an increase of 100%) over today's
> commercially-available solar panels, we would only obtain 600 W per square
> meter to electricity - a paltry return.
>
>
>
> The physics are undeniable. Solar is abysmal compared to Wind, and both
> are horrid compared to *Nuclear or Coal* which have energy densities
> between *3 kW to 11 kW per square meter* depending upon size and
> configuration of plant.
>
>
>
> That's *10 to 36 times more power per square meter than Solar* can
> provide, and *4.5 to 17 times more power per square meter than Wind*.
>
>
>
> Don't miss that. Nuclear and Coal provide:
>
>
>
> - *10 to 36 times more power per square meter than Solar*
> - *4.5 to 17 times more power per square meter than Wind*
>
> Nuclear and coal plants (nominally) have footprints that are 600 m x 600
> m (360,000 square meters) to 700 m x 700 m (490,000 square meters) -
> inclusive of material handling AND switchyards (needed for power
> distribution).
>
>
>
> Nuclear and coal have generation capacities ranging from 1 GW to 4 GW per
> those areas, *and are available 24/7*. Now, that's reliable, efficient,
> and inexpensive electrical generation. The numbers speak for themselves.
>
>
>
> ...and we're throwing it away in favor of wind and solar which are
> unreliable, inefficient, and costly.
>
>
