Finally my investment in breeding stock and ranch improvements will pay off!

Maybe in the short term. Evolving higher tech will have tremendous energy needs.

See "Dyson Spheres".

Best,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus

So you are trying to tell us that burning fossil fuels on Earth will result in an atmosphere of nearly 100% carbon dioxide at a pressure approximately 92 times current atmospheric pressure?

Earth's atmosphere consists of approximately 0.038% carbon dioxide.

How many tons of fossil fuels would we have to burn to raise that carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere from 0.038% to 0.039%?

A few "back of the napkin" figures to demonstrate the nonsense behind "global warming" ideas:

A 0.001% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would represent approximately 5 trillion metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Current burning of fossil fuels is estimated to generate approximately 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year (U.S. Dept. of Energy number). Some claim that only half of that 22 billion tons is not reabsorbed by plant life and remains in the atmosphere. Accepting that figure (I actually think much more is reabsorbed), CO2 in the atmosphere increases by about 11 billion tons each year.

So we can see that it would take approximately 470 years of current fossil fuel burning to raise CO2 levels from 0.038% to 0.039% of the atmosphere.

Now show me the lab experiments that demonstrate an increase of carbon dioxide from 0.038% to 0.039% in an oxygen-nitrogen mixture equivalent to earth's atmosphere, suddenly changes the heat transfer properties of that gas mixture -- preventing "heat loss" (as the "global warming" proponents claim) to a degree that it could increase overall atmospheric temperatures across the entire planet by a measurable amount?

The earth's surface atmosphere may be warming up, but any such warming has nothing to do with the carbon dioxide being put in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.

The amount of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is simply insignificant when measured against the amount of CO2 that exists naturally in the atmosphere.

There are real pollution issues relating to human activity, but "CO2 emissions" is not one of them.

compy - I don't know what your problem is, but you do need professional counseling.

also... get yourself a new napkin.

Back to fusion. We already can do that pretty well - uncontrolled - with an H bomb! ;)

As far as controlled / reactor fusion, I remember visiting a fusion research center exactly 20 years ago. They said success was 20 years away. Today you will get the same story. Fusion is the infamous moving target - always 20 years out.

Frankly, I am tired of fusion news - I am surprised that these centers aren't embarrassed to send out press releases like the one from MIT ...

It would be good if we could get back into serious fission research and development. Nuclear engineering is a dying engineering field these days.

George

Fission is dead only in THIS country and only because of the *******s. Jane Fonda wasn't just an anti-war activist...

Whether it is fusion or fission, here is what would happen if we went hard over to nuclear.

With that said, Let's look at where and how energy is used for in this country:

From the US DOE: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.jpg

Petrolem, 70% goes to Transportation. The other 30%, 2% is Power Generation, 5% Residential & Commercial (Heating), 24% Industrial (Feed Stock and some heating).

We never cab be "carbon free" since we need Petroleum for Industrial Feed Stocks.

Let's say we expand Nuclear, not just to make all Electric Power Generation, but also so that all of our heating needs are done with Nuclear.

Lets say we can move all Natural Gas to Transportation
Coal is not used to replace anything, but still provides feedstock (Coke, etc)
Hydro remains for Electric Generation
Natural Gas gets moved to Transportation
Biomass where it makes fuel and feedstock is maintained, but no heating (Wood Stoves, etc)
Petroleum is still used for feedstock, but not fuel

Nuclear would make up 59.6% of our Energy Needs
Petroleum would drop to 14.2%
Natural Gas would Stay 23.6%, but used for Transportation
Coal drops to 1.9%
Renewables stay at 6.2%

Our Petroleum usage would be about 35.7% of today. (14.2% vs. 39.8%). We presently supply about 30% of our petroleum needs, so we need to increase our domestic supply 20%, to make it to 35.7%. The Difference could be easily be made up with local drilling. As a minimum, we could reduce our imports by 92%!!!

Carbon Emmisions, would drop by 54%!!!

Natural Gas can be used to fuel vehicles as either compressed natural gas, or as Methanol (CH3OH). Methanol might work well, since it would be easier to modifiy existing cars to work on Methanol, than CNG.

And as time goes by, and we develop electric vehicles, the Petroleum usage and then natural gas usuage will drop, and those carbon based items will be used only as feed stocks and raw materials (plastics, etc!).

Fission is not really dead in this country. TVA is moving ahead with plans to complete Watts Bar Unit 2 and there is more and more talk of proceeding with Bellefonte.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/watts-bar.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5392/is_200712/ai_n21300668

Mr. Obama has stated an opposition to nuclear. He thinks we need more work on what to do with the waste.

What we need is someone who understands that NO waste policy is perfect. We also need to remove the legislation not allowing breeder reactors. With breeder fission reactors, we could power the world for the next 500 years with our known uranium reserves. And there is a lot more uranium out there!

With 500 years, we definitely can find the "next" source. I'm not sure what the next source is, but I can tell you what the "final" energy source will be: Direct matter to energy conversion. Once that is figured out, we basically will have unlimited power, almost for ever.

That's not necessarily the case. W sent a great science budget to congress, but they didn't get their act together and we ended up with an omnibus spending bill that killed most things science related. We ended up having to take two weeks of furloughs + layoffs here at Fermilab to get by during the crunch.

We'll see what happens under Obama, but the word on the street looks good.

The additional work to do is in trying to reshape the heads of the NIMBY folks. Yucca Mountain is technically sound. The opposition seems to be mostly emotional.

Coincidentally I am tangentially involved in getting rid of nuclear waste (our facility produces it and we need to get rid of it). It is a messy (?) issue, but I think we have some pretty good plans in place to do it. What the public doesn't understand is that we are currently shipping highly radioactive waste all over the country right now. You never hear about it because there are no issues.

I thought vitrification pretty much solves the waste issue. No?

Vitrification and storage in a very stable area are the solution. And that is Yucca mountain.

Well that's the nice part with fusion. Not much happens. the plasma cools down, fusion stops, power goes down and you get lot's of pissed customers because of power shortage. Remember, you only have couple of grams of plasma in Tokamak. If it cools down, it stops reacting. It's not like fission plant with 100+ tons of radioactive fuel making a mess.

Goran, that has been the promise of Fusion for 75 years. The promise. We still haven't figured it out.

As one of my Nuke engineering professors said to our class.

"What is the size of a critical mass of unranium or plutonium?"

He hold his hands like he's holding a ball

"About the size of a large grapefruit."

"How big is critical mass for a fusion reaction?"

He pointed out the window, to the setting sun.

I am not saying it can't be done. But a fusion reactor is going to be a seriously expensive and complicated beast. Fission reactors are pretty darn simple by comparison. And Fission reactors are serious expensive and complicated compared to any fossil plant! The reason the economics "work" is that the fuel is cheap.

Obama's choice of Steve Chu as DOE secretary bodes well for the future of nuclear power. Chu understands that nuclear power is part of the solution and not part of the problem.

My sister is the lead environmental attorney at the DOE for Yucca Mtn. She says it's political issues, not technical ones that hinder effective, permanent waste management.

People in Nevada aren't too pleased....

Nuclear certainly has some tremendous benefits. But it has some potentially catastrophic risks also. The liklihood of many of those events is very very small, but....

Other 'events' include transport accidnets and terrorism/crime gang theft of nuclear material.

The other thing to be considered is centralization of the power grid. Brown-outs and failures in the last decade have convinced many that wee need a more nodal type grid that would be similar to the Internet. Solar panels fit the bill nicely for this. Nuke plants do not.

No one ever is pleased when something goes in their back yard, but they need to take one for the team, IMHO.

Commercial nuclear power's safety record has been so good for so long that even it's opponents are finding it hard to argue an "accident" as a credible risk. Transport accidents are a relative non-issue. The casks are more than adequate to pevent release in an accident. And terrorists can't steal nuclear waste - well, OK, I guess they can, but then what will they do with it? Without a substantial processing facility, they'll just die when they open the cask.

The only problem is that solar panels currently suck in the power generation department. We have here at my facility the largest and most efficient solar array in the state of Tennessee. It's almost 300 feet long and it produces 50 kW.

+1. LOL


DIA just put in a huge (measured in acres) solar array. Sun tracking and the whole bit. It covers up to 4% of the total airport energy usage. I don't even know where the break even point is economically....

"The casks are more than adequate to prevent release in an accident."

- Probably.

But you have to "put it in" the cask first. That is the real accident issue AFAIK.

Solar panels just need some R&D -- think about how long it will take to get approval and then construct a nuke plant. Then ask where photovoltaic solar will be in that time frame.

A panel on an LA roof also helps SHADE that roof - so you get a double benefit...


I am not likely to invest in anything nuclear - despite the incredible govt. subsidy for that industry.

But solar cells are looking like a growth industry.