C
Crom
Guest
Fuel cells require hydrogen, most hydrogen is extracted from the methane in natural gas. Also energy's needed to get the hydrogen out of the methane.Ender said:
Peak Oil
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
OP
OP
This is still made from hydrocarbons and requires hydrocarbon energy to construct. Same problems as before...
And it won't even come close to providing the energy needs for our waste.
These technologic breakthroughs will be important in the future because they will provide enough energy to keep us from slipping back to the dark ages.
Yet, it will not stop the localization that is bound to happen. It will not stop the splintering and contraction of industry. It will not replace the automobile, the airplaine, or the tank.
And it won't even come close to providing the energy needs for our waste.
These technologic breakthroughs will be important in the future because they will provide enough energy to keep us from slipping back to the dark ages.
Yet, it will not stop the localization that is bound to happen. It will not stop the splintering and contraction of industry. It will not replace the automobile, the airplaine, or the tank.
Ender
Black Belt
Atomic energy provides an amazing source of concentrated power. The potential applications that have been proposed are widely varied. There is room for unlimited innovation and creativity.
Imagine what it would be like to have a battery that could provide power for several decades without recharging. Sounds almost like science fiction.
Fact, in this case, matches fiction.
The Voyager space probes carried devices called radioisotope thermal generators. (RTGs) These devices are simply amazing. They work on a simple principle. With semi conductor type materials, a current can be established by heating one side while cooling the other. The effect is known as the thermoelectric effect.
Nuclear Batteries
An RTG uses a radioactive material (like plutonium-238) as the heat source. This kind of plutonium spontaneously produces about one kilowatt of heat energy for every two kilograms of mass.
This energy level decreases slowly over time; after ten years the heat production is about 92 percent of the initial value. Even after 87 years, the material produces half as much heat as it did when it started.
The energy is actually released in the form of an alpha particle which can only travel a short distance before it stops. As the alpha particle slows, its motion is converted into heat. The battery material surrounding the plutonium provides adequate shielding. The batteries are so compact that a lightweight case can be built to withstand the stresses of atmosphere reentry without releasing any plutonium.
Nuclear batteries were essential to the success of the long distance space probes. Solar cells would not have provided enough power to operate the required equipment because the sun was too far away. Chemical batteries can provide enough power to run the instruments for a short period of time, but their total energy storage capacity is many times less than that of a nuclear battery.
The instruments and communications gear on the probes that provided such fantastic pictures of Satun and Jupiter would have been just dead weight without some form of power.
Better than the Rest
Nuclear batteries might have other uses. Imagine being able to buy a 10 year battery for a video camera, a laptop computer, or a portable telephone. Imagine how many rechargable NiCad batteries would have to be replaced during 10 years of continuous use.
Space program RTGs were too expensive for such use, but NASA's first microprocessors were also far out of the reach of average human beings. By using the increasing stockpile of heat producing nuclear "waste" material, it is possible to dramatically reduce the cost of RTGs
Imagine what it would be like to have a battery that could provide power for several decades without recharging. Sounds almost like science fiction.
Fact, in this case, matches fiction.
The Voyager space probes carried devices called radioisotope thermal generators. (RTGs) These devices are simply amazing. They work on a simple principle. With semi conductor type materials, a current can be established by heating one side while cooling the other. The effect is known as the thermoelectric effect.
Nuclear Batteries
An RTG uses a radioactive material (like plutonium-238) as the heat source. This kind of plutonium spontaneously produces about one kilowatt of heat energy for every two kilograms of mass.
This energy level decreases slowly over time; after ten years the heat production is about 92 percent of the initial value. Even after 87 years, the material produces half as much heat as it did when it started.
The energy is actually released in the form of an alpha particle which can only travel a short distance before it stops. As the alpha particle slows, its motion is converted into heat. The battery material surrounding the plutonium provides adequate shielding. The batteries are so compact that a lightweight case can be built to withstand the stresses of atmosphere reentry without releasing any plutonium.
Nuclear batteries were essential to the success of the long distance space probes. Solar cells would not have provided enough power to operate the required equipment because the sun was too far away. Chemical batteries can provide enough power to run the instruments for a short period of time, but their total energy storage capacity is many times less than that of a nuclear battery.
The instruments and communications gear on the probes that provided such fantastic pictures of Satun and Jupiter would have been just dead weight without some form of power.
Better than the Rest
Nuclear batteries might have other uses. Imagine being able to buy a 10 year battery for a video camera, a laptop computer, or a portable telephone. Imagine how many rechargable NiCad batteries would have to be replaced during 10 years of continuous use.
Space program RTGs were too expensive for such use, but NASA's first microprocessors were also far out of the reach of average human beings. By using the increasing stockpile of heat producing nuclear "waste" material, it is possible to dramatically reduce the cost of RTGs
Never gonna happen.Ender said:
RTGs are still a potential source of radioactive contamination: ifthe container holding the fuel leaks, the radioactive material will contaminate the environment. The main concern is that if an accident were to occur during launch or a subsequent passage of a spacecraft close to Earth, harmful material could be released into the atmosphere.
There have been five known accidents involving RTG powered spacecraft. The first two were launch failures involving U.S. Transit and Nimbus satellites. Two more were failures of Soviet Cosmos missions containing RTG-powered lunar rovers. Finally, the failure of the Apollo 13 meant that the Lunar Module whichcarried the RTG reentered the atmosphere and burnt up ove Fiji.. The RTG itself survived reentry of the Earth's atmosphere intact, plunging into the Tonga trench in the Pacific Ocean. The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry, is stable and no release of Plutonium will occur. Subsequent investigations have found no increase in the natural background radiation in the area.
RTGÂ’s have been used terrestrially, as long-life batteries for pacemakers, with about 150 Pu-238 powered pacemakers still in service, and as power sources for lighthouses, with many Soviet lighthouses being powered by Strontium 90. These lighthouses represent a significant risk of contamination and or possible terrorist theft, not in the least part because Russia has lost the records on some of their locations.
oh, and it's more precisely the Seebeck effect that RTGs rely upon: the thermoelectric effect describes the entire phenomena, the Peltier-Seebeck effect:wink1:
C
Crom
Guest
There's not as much nuclear waste lying around as people think. Most of the waste is low level and not radioactive enough to be of any use, this consists of container liners etc.
Then there's the fact that there's only around 50 years worth of uranium (from which the plutonium is made) left at todays usage rate and price, the price would have to increase significantly for other production techniques to become viable. Thats not to say that we'll run out of uranium, there're huge amounts in the ocean but to extract them costs at least 10 times conventional mining and so they can never do anyhting but slow the decline, it'll never replace oil.
Then there's the fact that there's only around 50 years worth of uranium (from which the plutonium is made) left at todays usage rate and price, the price would have to increase significantly for other production techniques to become viable. Thats not to say that we'll run out of uranium, there're huge amounts in the ocean but to extract them costs at least 10 times conventional mining and so they can never do anyhting but slow the decline, it'll never replace oil.
OP
OP
Ender said:
I have no doubt that nuclear energy will be a factor in the Peak Oil problem...despite environmental consequences! Yet, Crom said it best.
Here is the problem...and some are the same problems we have been discussing...
1. We should be doing things like converting over now. The Peak is probably here, yet we remain focused on oil...This is going to bite us in the *** in the end.
2. It requires energy to build all of these things and all of the new powerplants in the US are methane based. As the price of energy rises exponentially, these technology may become too far out of our reach.
3. Good uranium and plutonium for these types of technology isn't available on the kind of scale that oil is available. Therefore, these technologies will have specialized uses in the future.
I do not think that any of these new technologies will have the power to prop up our current standard of energy waste. None of them are as easy to obtain as oil, nor do they have the ability to fill the gap in magnitude. This concept of continual growth and development is not going to last far into the next century because of this energy crisis. We are going to be forced to rethink everything about how we live.
They say everything is big in Texas...OK...they'll be first to go down.
Tgace
Grandmaster
OP
OP
Tgace said:
There are solutions, Tom. We can do something about this. We must become more conservative ...in the good sense of the word. We need to cut our waste. Americans need to cut their energy usage by 50%. We need to start planning for this. Alternative energy can help, but it will not replace oil. Nothing will replace oil and nothing will prop up our current standard of living. We need to get our head out of the sand while we still have the chance. If we continue this myopic focus on oil, the economy is going to eventually tank and by then, it will be too late.
OP
OP
Heres a couple ideas to start with folks:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me2.html
More of this = Less oil use... Granted, it might keep the farmers busy... :O
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me2.html
More of this = Less oil use... Granted, it might keep the farmers busy... :O
T
TonyM.
Guest
One can only hope we're peak oil. I'm sick to death of the carbon club and all their lies, thievery and pollution.
OP
OP
Tgace said:
You sound like you don't buy into this. Why?
The planet earth weighs 1.3 E 25pounds. (130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
Or, if you prefer, 4.6 E 18tons. (46000,000,000,000,000,000)
Or, 6 E24 kilograms. ( 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
Of that mass, less than 1% was oil prior to the age of large scale oil use (call it sometime after Henry Ford), and that mass has been exponentially decreasing with increased consumption-I think the U.S. alone currently conumes about 85 million barrels of oil a day. The Hubbert oil peak is merely common sense,as the earth, and all its bounty-not just oil-is finite, and no one can say for certain when the peak is or was, though we can probably be fairly sure that it has already passed, or is just about to: the Association for the Study of Peak Oil puts it at 2007.
The U.S. would require at least an eightfold increase in nuclear power production, from 10% of all energy supplied to about 90%, to replace both the current amount of electricity generated from fossil fuels and gasoline usage. Nuclear engineers estimate that the world can derive 400,000 quads of energy (1000 years at current levels of consumption) from uranium isotope 235, if reprocessing is not employed.
Fast breeder reactors are another possibility. As opposed to current LWR (light water reactors) which burn the rare isotope of uranium U-235, fast breeder reactors produce plutonium from U-238, and then fission that to produce electricity and thermal heat. It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years' worth of U-238 for use in these power plants, and that they can return a high ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) and avoid some of the problems of current reactors by being automated, passively safe, and reaching economies of scale via mass production. There are a few such research projects working on fast breeders – Lawrence Livermore national Laboratory being one, currently working on the small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor (SSTAR).
The long-term radioactive waste storage problems of nuclear power have not been solved, although onsite spent fuel storage in casks has allowed power plants to make room in their spent fuel pools. One possible solution several countries are considering is using underground repositories. The U.S nuclear waste from various locations is planned to be entombed inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada. I donÂ’t think this is a viable solution. In fact, IÂ’m hoping to get funding for a proof-of principle experiment and prototype for Accelerator Transmutation of Waste here at LANSCE in the next couple of years, a process that would get rid of waste, produce electrical power and hydrogen-of course, it has its own potential dangers.
As for what you can or should do, well, as someone who has been anticipating this since 1973, I recommend the greasel alternative-I’ve converted two vehicles to run on pure plant oil, if necessary, as well as our generator. I‘d also see to other alternative sources-we have extensive photovoltaics and a windmill, and can be grid-free at any time, though we still get power form the electric company. Lastly, start your gardens and raise chickens and rabbits.Get on the bicycle, if you can, and get horses, if you're able.And conserve, conserve, conserve.
ItÂ’s not about some doom and gloom survivalist scenario, itÂ’s about self-reliance.
Or, if you prefer, 4.6 E 18tons. (46000,000,000,000,000,000)
Or, 6 E24 kilograms. ( 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
Of that mass, less than 1% was oil prior to the age of large scale oil use (call it sometime after Henry Ford), and that mass has been exponentially decreasing with increased consumption-I think the U.S. alone currently conumes about 85 million barrels of oil a day. The Hubbert oil peak is merely common sense,as the earth, and all its bounty-not just oil-is finite, and no one can say for certain when the peak is or was, though we can probably be fairly sure that it has already passed, or is just about to: the Association for the Study of Peak Oil puts it at 2007.
The U.S. would require at least an eightfold increase in nuclear power production, from 10% of all energy supplied to about 90%, to replace both the current amount of electricity generated from fossil fuels and gasoline usage. Nuclear engineers estimate that the world can derive 400,000 quads of energy (1000 years at current levels of consumption) from uranium isotope 235, if reprocessing is not employed.
Fast breeder reactors are another possibility. As opposed to current LWR (light water reactors) which burn the rare isotope of uranium U-235, fast breeder reactors produce plutonium from U-238, and then fission that to produce electricity and thermal heat. It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 10,000 to five billion years' worth of U-238 for use in these power plants, and that they can return a high ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) and avoid some of the problems of current reactors by being automated, passively safe, and reaching economies of scale via mass production. There are a few such research projects working on fast breeders – Lawrence Livermore national Laboratory being one, currently working on the small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor (SSTAR).
The long-term radioactive waste storage problems of nuclear power have not been solved, although onsite spent fuel storage in casks has allowed power plants to make room in their spent fuel pools. One possible solution several countries are considering is using underground repositories. The U.S nuclear waste from various locations is planned to be entombed inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada. I donÂ’t think this is a viable solution. In fact, IÂ’m hoping to get funding for a proof-of principle experiment and prototype for Accelerator Transmutation of Waste here at LANSCE in the next couple of years, a process that would get rid of waste, produce electrical power and hydrogen-of course, it has its own potential dangers.
As for what you can or should do, well, as someone who has been anticipating this since 1973, I recommend the greasel alternative-I’ve converted two vehicles to run on pure plant oil, if necessary, as well as our generator. I‘d also see to other alternative sources-we have extensive photovoltaics and a windmill, and can be grid-free at any time, though we still get power form the electric company. Lastly, start your gardens and raise chickens and rabbits.Get on the bicycle, if you can, and get horses, if you're able.And conserve, conserve, conserve.
ItÂ’s not about some doom and gloom survivalist scenario, itÂ’s about self-reliance.
OP
OP
OP
OP
T
TonyM.
Guest
Using fission to boil water is only exeeded by exploding fission bombs in our atmosphere as the stupidest thing humans have ever done.
No, they were both brilliant........the first time. Everything after that was pretty stupid, though.TonyM. said:
Nuclear power can be used to produce electricity safely, especially given the experience of the last 40 years. If LWR reactors are kept well below 1000mW electrical output-say 600mW or so-they are remarkably safe: a look at the history reveals that the majority of serious U.S. nuclear industiral incidents have occured in plants whose output exceeded 800mW. The principle stupidities in the U.S. are not having a solution to the waste problem, which was magnified by our forced departure from the closed loop fuel cycle, and allowing such a widespread variety of designs and outputs in the name of free-market capitalism, when the whole issue should have been more thoroughly controlled by the federal government from its inception.
....and, no, it can't completely eliminate our transportation problems, but mass-transit has been underedeveloped for years...
