Fusion would be nice, but there is no significant effort these days -
comparable to what was done, for instance, when the first push for
fission power was undertaken, to get fusion going.
The matter is that we need something *now* - as a stop-gap measure
while we (a) find new ways of generating energy and (b) learn to stop
consuming so much.
Base load is a key factor here. Solar & wind power only work when
there's sunlight and wind. But there is a certain "base load" that is
needed and to which these other intermittent forms can only
supplement. There *may* be hope for thermal systems that derive a
temperature difference from ocean water depths. There *may* be hope
for geothermal (per Finland). But these only work in *some* places.
What does one do in places where there is no thermal possibility,
where there's no hydropower (waterfalls)?
We cannot store energy very well at all; the losses are very high when
we try. Also, transmitting power is a huge drain, very expensive, and
very dangerous (unless you think Tesla did in fact discover how to
transmit power thru the air).
We need to generate when and where we use it.
Someday we may come up with something better. But while we wait for
"someday," what do we do?
Nuclear - esp. IMHO thorium reactors - should play a significant role.
(See for instance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel).
Cheers.
Fil
On 20 March 2011 13:13, GURUPRASAD.K KUPPURAO <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear T.Love & the group,
>
> It was nice to follow this thread and a lot of good points have been raised and
> discussed.
>
> We know that necessity is mother of Invention...Humans have been adopting to the
> worst conditions either natural or those brought about by political forces to
> survive and adding that new tool and knowledge. N power's other side is Nuclear
> Fusion which is yet to reach critical conditions to be successful. If we can
> crack it , sure it will provide the so called Eco-friendly energy and make our
> planet as secure as Sun ( of course even sun will burn down one day!) ...In 50
> years we may have it powering everything from Cars to homes to industry all with
> a micro plant to supply ripple free power! Solar and Bio molecules would said
> to bring additional relief. A world consortium should work on it to have right
> to all...not to be patented ...for Plant earth is home for all of us
> irrespective of race, cast or creed...
>
> Let's hope and let's work for it.
>
> Guruprasad.K.Rao
> Bengaluru
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sun, March 20, 2011 8:33:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
> As designers looking at the three main sources of energy for electricity
> supply for countries, it seems there is a choice:
>
> Option A
> . High risk of toxicity and damage to environment for 10,000 years or
> more
> . Toxic to populace
> . Cancer risks to populace
> . Risk of terrorist attack and war
> . High potential for personal damage if exposed to fuel
> . Political tensions in terms of access to resources for creating
> energy
> Option B
> . High risk of toxicity and damage to environment for 10,000 years or
> more
> . Toxic to populace
> . Cancer risks to populace
> . Risk of terrorist attack and war
> . High potential for personal damage if exposed to fuel
> . Political tensions in terms of access to resources for creating
> energy
> Option C
> . High risk of toxicity and damage to environment for 10,000 years or
> more
> . Toxic to populace
> . Cancer risks to populace
> . Risk of terrorist attack and war
> . High potential for personal damage if exposed to fuel
> . Political tensions in terms of access to resources for creating
> energy
>
> Countries with access to all three resources have choice, and having that
> choice gives some international security.
> Some countries, such as Japan, have negligible resources so their choices
> are highly limited, especially in terms of avoiding being highly controlled
> by others.
> Some countries such as Germany have good access to all three resources,
> except one choice results in another country having some control over
> Germany .
>
> It's easy to understand how and why a country might choose to use
> nuclear-generated electricity for many reasons other than financial.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of jeffrey
> chan
> Sent: Saturday, 19 March 2011 10:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to Fil
>
> Dear Fil,
> Typical 'permanent' and consolidated storage such as the Yucca Mt Proposal
> do not get built and used because no one wants this in their backyard. We
> can all bet that even if the political base of the final location is weak,
> there will be strong opposition--an injustice in one part of the world has
> the capacity to resonate throughout the entire globe, says Habermas!
> Furthermore, I don't think insofar as nuclear wastes are concerned, applying
> the kind of cost-benefit analysis (i.e., harvesting residual energy by
> decay) is even the way to think about this issue. After all, energy gained
> through radioactive decay is simply not the same as energy gained from
> burning organic fuel: the psychology of perception is vastly different. Just
> like recycling our waste-water under water conservation policies in any arid
> locale, the first battle has to be a psychological; and this entails a
> deontological battle of conviction over simple utilitarianism. Similar logic
> applies to medical isotopes.
> I agree with the previous participant's comment that to rely on nuclear
> energy in view of rising prices of fossil fuels is an extremely short term
> measure that has large future unknowable and unknown repercussions. It looks
> like it is the market that is driving us to nuclear energy, and this drive
> is usually and erroneously--perhaps deceptively--couched in arguments of
> energy shortage. If we as a civilization is driven about by the things we
> have designed for the allocation of resources, then we have indeed lost
> control and all talk of design and the designer is no longer valid or
> relevant.
> Finally, if we look at where are the places where nuclear plants are being
> proposed, the correlation between rocketing population growth and a seeming
> consensus to build them are quite telling. As a species, are we contend to
> allow the paradox of rising populations diminish the probability of
> populations down the road? A paradox indeed--and a frightening one. This is
> one technology that we know how to build and harness, but we have no good
> theory or practice of containment. I always thought we would have by now
> invented robots and improvisatory measures to fight nuclear fires. The
> helicopters dumping water and boric acid fire-fighting tell me that we don't
> yet have very accountable measures in place. Until we have accountable
> measures, it is the responsibility of a designing species to forestall any
> further development of something that is patently harmful and unknowable
> with long lasting undesirable consequences.
> Jeffrey Chan
>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:27:02 -0400
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to
> Norman - a Fukushima solution by Germany
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > It depends on the technology used.
> > For instance, IF the Yucca Mountain repository ever gets built & used, the
> > stored waste will generate enough heat to keep the ambient temperature at
> > around 200C. You can boil water with that kind of heat. Which you can
> use
> > to run turbines that generate electricity. And that heat source will be
> > available for thousands of years. Wouldn't it be good to find a use for
> > that nuclear waste?
> > Also, if we used thorium based reactors, then we wouldn't get as much
> waste,
> > and much of the nuclear byproduct would be highly-valued "medical
> isotopes."
> >
> > That said, I would not advocate to "depend on Nuclear energy for hundreds
> of
> > years." It's a temporary measure, and, I think, a very good one.
> >
> > See my blog posting:
> > http://filsalustri.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/rethinking-nuclear/
> >
> > Cheers.
> > Fil
> >
> > On 18 March 2011 13:27, Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder how many spent fuel rods we will have to dispose of if we
> depend
> > > on
> > > Nuclear energy for hundreds of years. It seems like lazy short term
> > > thinking
> > > again.
> > >
> > > Rob Curedale
> > >
> > > .....................................................................
> > >
> > > email: [log in to unmask]
> > > url: www.curedale.com
> > > address: PO Box 1153 Topanga CA 90290 USA
> > > skype: rob.curedale
> > > profile: http://tiny.cc/92p9t
> > > twitter: @designresearch
> > >
> > > .....................................................................
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> > Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> > Ryerson University
> > 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> > M5B 2K3, Canada
> > Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> > Fax: 416/979-5265
> > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
>
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
