Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Jimmy Dean]

Hello; I can see how it could work with nuclear. I did look into it a bit years ago. Correct me if I am wrong but one of the issues is that the fuels for nuclear are limited in the sense of being a finite resource. I forget how it worked out but was surprised how quickly the known reserves might be used up if all power was produced by nuclear. Bear in mind this was maybe two decades ago so maybe things are different now.

The second big issue after a reactor accident is what to do with the spent fuel and other contaminated material. I had a video used in my science classes. It showed a site in South Carolina where low level radioactive material was buried in large pits. The video closed with an image of pipes sticking out of the ground and a notice the site will have to be monitored for a very long time.

But yes you are correct nuclear could make H and have it stored as either a combustion fuel of for fuel cells. I begin to think fuel cells will not become mainstream.

They are finite. They'll only last a few billion years. I am sure we can either allocate resources from another planet, or figure out fusion, before they run out though.

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

If only we were closer to nuclear fusion on an industrial scale. This is the future of power generation if we can ever scale it up and get it out of the lab.

Hello; yes the dream of decades.

 

[sk47]

They are finite. They'll only last a few billion years. I am sure we can either allocate resources from another planet, or figure out fusion, before they run out though.

Hello; Guess I am mistaken.

 

[sk47]

How Much Uranium Is Left In The World, & When Will We Run Out? - Better Meets Reality

Hello; The answer I found here more matches what I was thinking. It depends on where you try to get the fuel. Uranium from on land the may last as little as 80 years.
If the uranium in sea water could be recovered I think the number is over 5000 years. However recovering uranium for seawater is described as difficult and expensive.

I will read the article again and narrow down the numbers.

quote from the article "On land, some estimates say we have about an 80 year viable supply of uranium left, whilst other estimates say we have a 230 year supply of uranium at today’s consumption rate for undiscovered uranium."

Quote from the article "For earth mined uranium:

At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years.

Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years.

(Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)"

 

[Jimmy Dean]

How Much Uranium Is Left In The World, & When Will We Run Out? - Better Meets Reality

Hello; The answer I found here more matches what I was thinking. It depends on where you try to get the fuel. Uranium from on land the may last as little as 80 years.
If the uranium in sea water could be recovered I think the number is over 5000 years. However recovering uranium for seawater is described as difficult and expensive.

I will read the article again and narrow down the numbers.

quote from the article "On land, some estimates say we have about an 80 year viable supply of uranium left, whilst other estimates say we have a 230 year supply of uranium at today’s consumption rate for undiscovered uranium."

Quote from the article "For earth mined uranium:

At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years.

Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years.

(Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)"

you read the whole thing? it is 300k, and that is not counting the use of existing waste in breeder reactors, not counting the conversion of nuclear weapons to fuel grade. while my billions of years may have been a bit facetious, the point stands. the costs of mining uranium is negligible, and 10x the cost to extract from seawater is also still negligible compared to the operating and legal cost of building and operating a reactor.

 

[Burkey]

The Dirty Secret of ‘Clean’ Energy (msn.com)

Hello; Not sure how to label this one. Some money involved in the sense of forced labor and labor camps.

Quotes from link "to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by at least 50 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. An estimate shows that to reach this ambitious goal, at least half of the U.S. power supply would have to come from clean energy such as solar and wind."

"The Sheffield Hallam University report, titled “In Broad Daylight: Uyghur Forced Labor and Global Solar Supply Chains,” shows how China’s booming solar industry has been tainted by the forced labor of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang."

"Local authorities in Xinjiang were instructed to place “trainees” — Uyghurs and other minorities who were forcefully put into the internment camps — in various jobs after they completed their terms in the camps, regardless of their wishes or desires. Some “trainees” would be sent to work at factories near the camps. Researchers identified at least 135 such “reeducation” camps co-located with or close to factories. Other less fortunate “trainees” were transferred to factories across the country, far from their homes and loved ones."

There is a bit about how Japan is avoiding having to use solar equipment made in China near the end of the article.

Edit - I did fail to mention the bit about how a lot of coal is burned in the solar panel chain of events.
Quote from link - "Besides the use of forced labor, Chinese suppliers to solar companies are known for their inefficient production process. For example, according to the report, solar company Hoshine’s Xinjiang facility pays workers to crush silicon by hand at a rate of $6.50 per ton. In addition, the process of turning silicon into polysilicon demands a significant amount of electricity. In Xinjiang, electricity is mostly generated by coal, an industry that the Chinese government heavily subsidizes. The availability of cheap coal is one of the main reasons Xinjiang has become China’s most important solar hub. Not surprisingly, Chinese solar suppliers in Xinjiang have produced high carbon emissions because of their dependency on coal."

So you’re upset at China for emitting roughly 50% less CO2 per capita than the US, even though the Chinese manufacture the panels that allow US citizens to reduce their emissions?

Maybe the US could get involved in the production of solar panels?
Maybe the US could lecture China on emissions when China’s emissions are in the same league per capita as the US?

It’s not like I can say much on the issue. It’s my government that sells a lot of the coal to China whilst simultaneously not promoting local business investment in the manufacture of panels/renewables.

Who IS the bad guy here?

Something the US and Australia have in common is that they both risk being left behind technologically in amongst all of this, if that hasn’t happened already.

 

[Gregs24]

That oil burner is probably cleaner. I thought you said wood burning has been banned in the UK.

You take offense to ants but are free with your insults and name calling.

I believe if the general public was given the real facts and not hyped up doom and gloom, the push back against forcing EV's and other so called green energy would be much higher.

Where are they going to get the electricity to make the hydrogen? It takes more energy to get the hydrogen than it gives as a fuel. That is one reason hydrogen powered cars has not taken off.

No - if you had read correctly wood is not banned. Wet wood is banned and woodburners require particulate filters. 'Oil burner is probably cleaner' - great statement, lets have some facts from you on that. The oil burner is being replaced by air source heating.

It was you that described the peons as ants that you so object to making contact with on public transport.

Real facts is exactly what they have been presented with. The 'push back' is in your mind, the majority move forward. Remember, you are in the minority and democracy is very powerful. I have already made it quite clear that I consider extremes like you and Greta equally bad.

I have already explained the difference between blue hydrogen and green hydrogen, you obviously chose to ignore that too.

 

[Gregs24]

The article did mention the plant will run 24/7 I believe, so some sort of massive energy storage may be in the plans.

That is what hydroelectric power is for (together with other smaller scale storage) We have been using hydro in the UK for years. Pump up the water when excess production and then release to drive turbines when demand exceeds production. Looks like you are too.

 

[Gregs24]

Maybe the US could get involved in the production of solar panels?

That boat may have already sailed - the US was a leader, but not any more

 

[sk47]

you read the whole thing? it is 300k, and that is not counting the use of existing waste in breeder reactors, not counting the conversion of nuclear weapons to fuel grade. while my billions of years may have been a bit facetious, the point stands. the costs of mining uranium is negligible, and 10x the cost to extract from seawater is also still negligible compared to the operating and legal cost of building and operating a reactor.

Hello; here is a quote from the article.

"In fast breeder reactors [a special type of nuclear reactor], which could extend the use of uranium by a factor of 60, the uranium could last for 300,000 years.

However, [some argue] that these reactors’ complexity and cost makes them uncompetitive."

– phys.org


I did not include the 300,000 years figure for this reason in my summary. I did read the whole thing.

 

[K4fxd]

That is what hydroelectric power is for

The US is getting rid of hydro due to the impact on fish.

It was you that described the peons as ants that you so object to making contact with on public transport.

You have a comprehension problem.

The ant reference is a collective community policy VS an individual community policy.
I believe the individual is equal to the collective.

When I said peon I mean anyone other than the elites IE royals.

I won't ride public transport simply because there is none where I live and I don't have a need for it. If it means anything I will not fly on commercial aircraft either.

 

[K4fxd]

But but but....... the sky is falling, just ask greg, burky and al gore.

 

[sk47]

That is what hydroelectric power is for (together with other smaller scale storage) We have been using hydro in the UK for years. Pump up the water when excess production and then release to drive turbines when demand exceeds production. Looks like you are too.

Hello; You may not know of it but I live in a TVA area. (Tennessee Valley Authority.) There are several hydro-electric dams in this area. These dams were started in the 1930's in some cases. The power these hydro dams make is already earmarked for use. In fact if things are going as normal the water level is now being raised by rainfall. This happens every spring so there will be a full pool. That gives us some extra capacity during the AC use season.
It also is at full pool for the recreation side of the reservoir use. Boaters pull boats from several states away such as Ohio to have fun on the lakes. They like it with a full pool so the income to the state of TN is important enough so only so much water can be drawn down at any one time to make electricity. If we have plenty of rain there is not a problem. If, like this year, we are down a few inches of rain already then less water will be drawn out of the lakes. So to keep the recreational boaters happy we will get some less power from the dams.

There also is a big environmental push to do away with dams in many places. Save the salmon and such.

I notice what I think of as a "pat" answer. Yes all hydro power could be sent to make hydrogen so the hydrogen could be used to make "green" steel. But since making hydrogen this way takes a lot of electricity someone will have to do without seems a reasonable guess.
I mean that at night all the homes, EV's and other consumers will still need electricity and solar will not be working, right?
In my area with a good number of dams already in place there are times in the hot and cold seasons when the power companies already ask us to cut back during times of peak use. Not sure where the extra power will come from to specifically run a green steel plant.

I say extra power because to do a green steel type plant buy it's nature uses lots of power to break the bonds and release the Hydrogen. It has been the energy cost to make hydrogen that has kept it off the table for over a century. Now you champions imagine there will be huge amounts of extra electrical energy. Not saying it cannot happen but it is another of the "sometime in the future" speculations.

 

[Gregs24]

The ant reference is a collective community policy VS an individual community policy.
I believe the individual is equal to the collective.

I believe in majority rule. The individual should be respected, but is NOT EQUAL to the majority collective. Democracy respects the individual but carries out the wishes of the majority

 

[Gregs24]

The US is getting rid of hydro due to the impact on fish.

'Getting rid of' - you need to do a bit of research about your own country.

Sponsored