Nuclear Energy, Clean Coal, Sterling Engines etc

Since coal is clean now (by virtue of putting the word "clean" in front of the word "coal"), I am now working on how to convert my Prius to run on coal.

Unfortunately the Mr. Fusion device is a ways off, so my Prius will have to wait for that.

 

"Clean coal" is a bad joke. The observed rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 indicates that we would have to capture and permanently store at least 1,000 cubic miles of CO2 annually in order to mitigate the effects of burning fossil fuels. This is impossible. The only clean coal is that which stays in the ground.

Nuclear power will have to be greatly expanded if we want to continue improving the world's standard of living without creating ruinous global warming.

 

How about just not using so much in the first place?

 

Yep, and nearly 80% of France's electricity comes from nukular power.

 

How do you filter out the cultural degradation involved with "clean coal"?

It is obvious you are of the "technology will solve all problems" persuassion. What was your major?

 

the issue with nuclear is disposal. the half lives of the non-recyclable nuclides are very long and can be well absorbed by living things, causing major damage. the waste will pile up faster than it will degrade, and then we've got issues.

clean coal is still a concept with a lot of problems to be worked out. it's by no means perfect.

i think the surest clean bets are going to be solar and wind. we've got lots of both if we place the right energy collectors correctly. hydro is great if you're in the right area.

 

We could use breeder reactors to solve the waste problem. The caveat is that we'd end up with a lot of weapons grade stuff. Breeder reactors in the US is OK. Breeder reactors in a lot of other places is pretty scary (it's scary enough here in the US). The problem with traditional nuclear (besides the waste issues) is that it's not really scalable unless we start using thorium. Thorium is perhaps a good option but there must be drawbacks because I don't thinks it's in widespread use. I don't know the science some I'll stop. The other issue with Nuclear is that it often consumes vast quantities of water. A lot of that water is vented as steam in cooling towers.

Clean coal is unproven but may be feasible on a smallish scale. The presence of saline aquifers as a storage mechanism is pretty doable, but there may be constraints on the rate on injection as well as the quantity.

Coal to Liquids is horrific and should not be pursued, except perhaps on a very small scale (which actually doesn't make sense financially because the capital costs for CTL are massive).

Using less energy is quite possible while increasing or maintaining standard of living. It's all about efficiency. LED traffic lights, CFL bulbs in the home. SEER 15 air conditioners. R40 walls. Efficiency is the cheapest way to solving our problems and should be the foundation of our energy policy. Then we should aggressively pursue a variety of technologies with the knowledge that no one of them is going to be THE solution. Using an intelligent mix of efficiency, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, biogas, solar, wind, tidal, wave, solar thermal, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, and yes... coal (in ever decreasing amounts) will put us in good stead. Increasing the use of cogeneration (using waste heat from electricity production for things like space and water heating) and fuel cells for stationary power (they're more efficient than turbines) where appropriate will also help (I guess that goes under efficiency).

The key to our oil problems is reduced consumption through efficiency (smaller cars and hybrids) and technological disruption (electric vehicles or, much less likely, fuel cells). The later has the potential to drastically reduce our oil consumption to the point where we'd be able to supply all of our needs for a while yet.

 

i suspect that nuclear waste storage, once it piles up enough, would be a source of a lot of infighting among our own. nevermind potential environmental consequences of an accidental radioactive leak.

 

Spent fuel needs to be processed and reused, not buried. It's manageable, but it takes more leadership than our politicians have been able to provide. I consider this more of a political problem than a technical one.

Tom

 

Well, instead of fission reactors, why not get serious about mining Helium-3 on the Moon? We have the technology for a fusion reactor. We just need the fuel. Helium-3 is that fuel and the closest place to get it is the Moon. The problem is getting it from there to here. If we don't, will China sit on its hands, with trillions in cash reserves, and ignore it? Doubtful. It's exactly why China wants to go to the Moon. He who gets there first and brings it back wins the energy game and likely controls the world economy. One shuttle payload full of Helium-3 carries enough energy to power a city of 10 million for a year. 25 tons is enough to power the entire U.S. for one year, with virtually no pollution or radioactive by-products. At a minimum, the Moon has enough Helium-3 deposits near the surface to power our entire planet for thousands of years. But only if we go get it.

 

not all of it can be reused, from what i understand. some of it's just crap byproducts that aren't high enough energy radionuclides. what can be recycled, definitely should.

 

I asked for majors not degrees A MBA won't tell you jack about biodiversity and a MS in Biology won't tell you about business models. lol

Most oil, natural gas, and coal is obtained on the lands of indigenous people and/or piped through their lands and the environmental and cultural degradation incurred is heavy. Why do we subject these people to this? Because we want creature comforts that we do not truely require for a happy life? That is very unethical IMO. Increase efficiency AND reduce consumption and these impacts can be minimized and in some cases avoided. People should not have to suffer just because some affluent individual thinks he deserves to live a specific lifestyle. We are all guilty of it and I'm no exception although I try every day to recognize my contributions and minimize them and advocate for those who do suffer to make the pain more real to me rather than a fluffy ideology.

Short Bioneers clip of Clayton Thomas-Muller (Stopping the Energy Colonization of Sacred Native Lands)

I also attended a talk by Larry Lansburgh where he detailed his time spent with the Achuar People of Ecuador. This is just a sample of the many cultures that are negatively affected by extractive practices around the world. Trailer for his film "Dream People of the Amazon"

These are not isolated incidents. This is a reality of indigenous cultures around the world as is documented by a host of sources. It is no different than the "manifest destiny" (as coined by John O'Sullivan) we (Europeans) imposed on indigenous peoples of North America. Most of us are appalled by the actions taken by settlers back then yet our resource extraction is no less devestating to native cultures than it was back then.

This quote sums it up nicely:

“Oil and gas can promote the worst case scenario in dealing with government. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act is a case in point. My community is 20 miles (32 kilometres) from a pipeline, but the (United States) federal legislation left native communities at a great disadvantage. We live 20 miles from a pipeline, but our community is impoverished. There is no direct benefit to our community while other governments are made rich. We have no running water in one of the richest nations on earth.†- Randy Mayo, Arctic Athabaskan Council, Alaska

Source: AcrticPeoples.org

 

At 6.6 billion (aprox.) and always growing we have reach the modified carrying capacity of the earth and are living off principle. We will go bankrupt and just like every other biological create on this planet we will suffer a crash or a population modification.

Paying indigenous people for their suffering completely misses the point and is quite offensive to even offer IMO.

I understand your points and would love to agree completely but unforunately technology has failed to fix more problems than it creates and I doubt it will change this trend before the human "bottleneck" occurs. People will not willingly give up their cushy lifestyles but natural systems don't care about wants or needs.

In all I am not refuting your desire to look for alternative energy sources, I'm actually all for that but I do expect people to look at the reality of the earth situation and realize that unending growth is not realistic and never has been. Checks and balances, even the largest positive feedback loops in history have been checked and reversed, often catestrophically.