In the UK for a while I've been trying to explore geothermal for electricity generation, but everyone so far I've come across seems to think it won't work and not to even bother exploring it..
Yet I seemed to have come across a company thats been building the things for the last 20 years, and got hundreds of working plants, so what gives!
The only technical answer I've heard so far came from a green forum about how impossible it was..
I'd be really interested if anyone here with far more technical knowledge than I could comment on the technical and economic aspects of the technology and its suitability for large scale electric generation. (I still see a place for polywells, like ships for example, and they would be quicker to install I imagine.)
http://www.foe.co.uk/forum/index.php?to ... icseen#new
http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic ... start=1375
Its a pity the Shetlands have an anti-nuclear policy ( http://nfznsc.gn.apc.org ) , but at least with a low crime area and an apparently welcoming attitude to newcomers due to their falling population levels, I might at least be able to build a house or two there. Even if it then means building someplace else if I want a fusion lab!
Any official news as of late July 2008?
-
Barry Kirk
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:33 pm
- Location: York, PA
- Contact:
Hey I just had a chicken omelette for breakfast....
Any case the real solution to the Nuclear waste involves re-processing. The nastiest long half life stuff is Pu239. So, give it a couple of months for the short half life to go away on it's own. (It's called on site storage).
Then take what's left and chemically extract the Pu239. The Pu239 can be burned in another reactor.
What's left after the Pu239 is extracted can than be glassed and stored in Yukka mountain. But to tell the truth, there won't be much and it isn't that dangerous.
Any case the real solution to the Nuclear waste involves re-processing. The nastiest long half life stuff is Pu239. So, give it a couple of months for the short half life to go away on it's own. (It's called on site storage).
Then take what's left and chemically extract the Pu239. The Pu239 can be burned in another reactor.
What's left after the Pu239 is extracted can than be glassed and stored in Yukka mountain. But to tell the truth, there won't be much and it isn't that dangerous.
Nanos,
As with all thermal-electric generation, you need a heat differential large enough to make a profit after the expense of building something to exploit it. So you mostly see them around hot springs and volcanoes and such, and it works better in cold countries like Iceland.
The Philippines actually get about a quarter of their power from geothermal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
As with all thermal-electric generation, you need a heat differential large enough to make a profit after the expense of building something to exploit it. So you mostly see them around hot springs and volcanoes and such, and it works better in cold countries like Iceland.
The Philippines actually get about a quarter of their power from geothermal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
For those interested in nuclear reprocessing, two suggestions (although off-topic) :
In contrast, if you put it this way: what energy source, that we know today, are we going to use that has a chance of still being available for future generations in, say, 500 years?, the conclusion comes easily and you do not need a degree in finance to get to it:
To finish on a lighter tone, all the above will become void as soon as another viable source of energy is engineered. Polywell is one of my favorite candidates but we have to wait.
- -Read the Future of Nuclear Power MIT study, especially ch. 4 and its appendix which are full of useful data and explanations about what is exactly left within a spent fuel element, what is reusable or not, and how (from my experience, I realized many nuclear operators did not know exactly).
-Do not buy economic studies on this matter unless all raw data from real-world physics are on the table (natural fertile/fissile isotope resources, energy/neutron/isotope balances). Beware of anything which is presented to you directly in dollar units.
- -From a 10-year perspective, dump spent fuel directly into the sea
. It is not my favorite scenario.
-From a 100-year perspective, forget reprocessing, forget nuclear and go for coal
.
-From a 200-year perspective, things are getting a bit more subtle
.
In contrast, if you put it this way: what energy source, that we know today, are we going to use that has a chance of still being available for future generations in, say, 500 years?, the conclusion comes easily and you do not need a degree in finance to get to it:
- -Today's fuel cycles are not sustainable (neither open, as in the US, nor closed-with-one-recycle, as in UK or France)
-We need BOTH reprocessing AND fast neutron reactors to avoid squandering the natural resources in fissile/fertile materials.
To finish on a lighter tone, all the above will become void as soon as another viable source of energy is engineered. Polywell is one of my favorite candidates but we have to wait.
Reprocessing is intersting, but why bother?
Solar Towers seem like a much better idea. No waste, no processing, no fuel, and they can only get cheaper. Current ones produce power at 3X cost of coal, and since they're composed of lots of nonstandard equipment, I imagine you could drop that to at least comparable without a lot of effort.
Solar Towers seem like a much better idea. No waste, no processing, no fuel, and they can only get cheaper. Current ones produce power at 3X cost of coal, and since they're composed of lots of nonstandard equipment, I imagine you could drop that to at least comparable without a lot of effort.
Again, why the assumption of one or the other, this or that, black or white? But if you want to talk about Obama's constituents (instead of his political base), it currently includes southern Illinois coal miners which explains a lot of his support for development of clean-coal technologies. His energy plan also calls for the expansion of oil drilling in the US (though less than McCain would call for), accelaration of a gas pipeline in Alaska and for a site/method of nuclear waste to be agreed upon so that new fission plants can be built. In fact, he was the only democratic candidate to really express any real support for further developing nuclear power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBEMSimon wrote:Who are O's constituents? The drill now pro nuke folks? Or the no drill, no nukes people?
Look, I'm not claiming Obama has all the answers or doesn't act as is convenient politically at times (he is a politician, after all), but to bluntly claim he is "no drill, no nukes" is grossly unfair.
Maui -
Over the decades I've developed a rather deep distrust of Democrats at the national level. I'll vote for them locally, if warranted, but nationally? I might as well give my wallet to a wino for all the good I'll get out of any Democrat saying he'll do something I want to see if he gets elected.
Pelosi had an 'energy plan'. Near as I can tell, that one was a roaring sucess. What was it again? Oh, yeah - don't drill. At all. Because we can't drill our way out of the oil shortage. She was quite adamant about that, as I recall.
Now Obama says he wants to go nuclear? That's almost a sure kiss of death to the slightly less than moribund nuclear industry in the US. He'll be all "Let's build more power plants!" until the day after the election - and if he wins you'll never see anything more about it... unless a Republican holds up the idea to help the US at which point it will be criticised and then defunded.
Your mileage may vary, but I don't see Obama improving the situation.
Over the decades I've developed a rather deep distrust of Democrats at the national level. I'll vote for them locally, if warranted, but nationally? I might as well give my wallet to a wino for all the good I'll get out of any Democrat saying he'll do something I want to see if he gets elected.
Pelosi had an 'energy plan'. Near as I can tell, that one was a roaring sucess. What was it again? Oh, yeah - don't drill. At all. Because we can't drill our way out of the oil shortage. She was quite adamant about that, as I recall.
Now Obama says he wants to go nuclear? That's almost a sure kiss of death to the slightly less than moribund nuclear industry in the US. He'll be all "Let's build more power plants!" until the day after the election - and if he wins you'll never see anything more about it... unless a Republican holds up the idea to help the US at which point it will be criticised and then defunded.
Your mileage may vary, but I don't see Obama improving the situation.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
Then I think you've made two mistakes:JLawson wrote:Over the decades I've developed a rather deep distrust of Democrats at the national level.
1) To distrust Democrats not politicians as a whole.
2) To assume any one politician can only be as good as the "worst" in his or her own party.
Obama is not Pelosi just as McCain is not Limbaugh (no matter what Obama's ads might say)
Anyway, I'm sure I'm liberal enough to make you queezy --and my friends are "worse" still-- but there isn't one of them I couldn't imagine being thrilled if WB7 (or any other fusion research) led to a breakthrough. (that is why I lurk on this board, after all)
The only reason to consider "Clean Coal" is if you are a member of the "Man made CO2 causes global warming" church.
The evidence is piling up that it is the sun and CO2 is a response (hotter oceans evolve CO2).
I like Bucky Fuller's attitude. Coal, oil, nat. gas represent our starter battery. We need to keep the engine kicking over until other sources are viable economically.
The evidence is piling up that it is the sun and CO2 is a response (hotter oceans evolve CO2).
I like Bucky Fuller's attitude. Coal, oil, nat. gas represent our starter battery. We need to keep the engine kicking over until other sources are viable economically.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
M Simon,
Did you read Critical Path? It's amusing to see what he was right and wrong about.
I had to chuckle when he quoted the Chinese proverb to argue against capitalism, given what China's done since he wrote it. He also seemed to think we were going to lose the Cold War.
Did you read Critical Path? It's amusing to see what he was right and wrong about.
I had to chuckle when he quoted the Chinese proverb to argue against capitalism, given what China's done since he wrote it. He also seemed to think we were going to lose the Cold War.
Last edited by TallDave on Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...
Yes. He got socialism totally wrong. Of course since he was in charge of the American industrial economy in WW2, I'm not surprised at his attitude. His mistake was in believing that the "New Socialist Men" all had his integrity and were different from the capitalists he knew.TallDave wrote:M Simon,
Did you read Critical Path? It's amusing to see what he was right and wrong about.
I had to chuckle when he quoted the Chinese proverb to argue against capitalism, given what China's done since he wrote it.
He never was a good judge of character.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Socialists will be all over fusion like flies on scat. It's the nearest thing to a free lunch as you'll get in the Universe. Also it'll serve as a great mechanism for centralising power if the "right" legislative tools are put in place, all for the good of the children, the old people and the environment too, of course.
We get the government we deserve. Sadly.icarus wrote:Socialists will be all over fusion like flies on scat. It's the nearest thing to a free lunch as you'll get in the Universe. Also it'll serve as a great mechanism for centralising power if the "right" legislative tools are put in place, all for the good of the children, the old people and the environment too, of course.
Stupid people. Stupid government.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.