Nuclear power...

[Steeplerot]

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

Nice link Moonie, now why again do these folks want to sell out our future to old technology is the question.

Millions spent on power company PR campaigns have done well it seems.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: B00ne
Well, you can be against nuclear power, but being for it wont make it a universal power source either. For one there aint enough fuel to make nuclear power the sole replacement for other base electricity generation platnts, Then nuclear aint that clean either - you forget the kind of water usage chemicals, energy and last but not leat radioactive waste that is generated in recycleing the fuel.

And do not forget nuclear can only be used for base load energy - you cant ramp up and down the enrgy production as the need arises - and energy demand does chnage constantly.

All in all nuclear aint as bad as some ppl make it out to be but is aint as good as other do either. And there is a reason why even most electricty giants rarely consider building new plants - prolonging the life of existing ones is another matter - those are cash cows

Nuclear power combined with solar is actually a pretty decent solution. The highest energy demand tends to be during the daylight hours, so solar could make up a lot of the usage gap above the base load generated by nuclear power.

Actually if you could harvest a lightning bolt... We could power the city of LA for the next 20 years or so. Get some money together and get on with it!

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: B00neI]
I doubt that is gonna cut it - for one then we are talking thousend if not tenthousends of new NPPs worldwide - the worldwide available nuclear fuel would be gone in no time.

You're just misinformed on this issue.

Uranium is present at an abundance 2 - 3 parts per million in the Earth's crust which is about 600 times greater than gold and about the same as tin. The amount of Uranium that is available is mostly a measure of the price that we're willing to pay for it. At present the cost of Natural Uranium ($100 per kg) is a small component in the price of electricity generated by Nuclear Power. At a price of $US50 per pound the known reserves amount to about 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with an expected further 500 years supply in additional or speculative reserves. The price of Uranium would have to increase by over a factor of 3 before it would have an impact of the cost of electricity generated from Nuclear Power. Such a price rise would stimulate a substantial increase in exploration activities with a consequent increase in the size of the resource (as has been the case with every other mineral of value). Currently the price of Uranium is increasing and this trend is projected to continue [1]. The world reserves of Uranium have increased by around 50% since the end of 2003.

However advanced technologies are being developed which are far more efficient in their use of Uranium or which utilize Thorium which is 3 times more abundant than Uranium. If perfected these technologies can make use of both the spent fuel from current nuclear reactors and the depleted Uranium stocks used for enrichment. Taken together these provide enough fuel for many centuries of energy production. This will mitigate the demand for newly mined Uranium.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOfUsableUranium

This is before even factoring how much further it will all last with nuclear reprocessing. For the extremely long term hopefully nuclear fusion is working by then or we find some other solution, but this certainly buys one heck of allot of time.

 

[BrownTown]

Also, the current spot price of uranium is quite high, but people don not actually buy the majority of uranium at the spot price, they negotiate long term contracts that are for MUCH less, the reason the spot price is so volatile is because a large percent of production is already tied up in long term contracts, so the small amount thats on the spot market gets the full impact from any shortages (like the flood at cigar lake). The price of uranium is 5 times what it was only a few years ago, so of course nobody was building new mines back then when uranium was so cheap (due to sold material from nuclear weapons), but new ones certainlly are being built now, it just takes a few years for them to catch up. Certainly uranium is a limited resource on this earth, but the doesn't mean we should use it, and used correctly our current uranium and thorium reserves could last at least 100 years I'd say even given a considerable increase in consumption. Hopefully by this time Moonbeam will have already developed cheap enough solar panels to take over and we will be fine, if not then fusion power or something else can take over.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This train is bound for glory, well this train...

HA DP

 

[piasabird]

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Hundreds of acres of the best farmland ruined and contaminated for the next 300 years because of one nuclear accident. This rogue reactor was capped, but it is still dangerous. In the accident part of the reactor literally blew apart and sailed through the roof which was designed to contain the radiation and landed in a field nearby.

Maybe safeguards in American reactors are safer, however, There is no guarantee that there will never be another nuclear accident. I would not want a reactor near a large city. The USSR was lucky this reactor was in the middle of a sparsely inhabited location and they could evacuate the location quickly. However, they were unlucky also because valuable famland in a large area near good water has become unusable and unproductive for around 300 years from just one accident.

Solar power is safer.
Wind Power is safer.
Hydro Power is safer.

 

[BrownTown]

Yes, well first off that is a fake. Secondly, there have been tons of posts on the problems associated with Chernobyl and how things are different in current reactors. Also, despite the stuff what happened at Chernobyl the number of deaths there is more or less insignificant compared to the number of deaths during the same time period from hydro power, so its kinda silly to say hydro is safer when it has killed so many. Solar and wind of course are pretty safe and so far there are certainly no instances I can recall of a horrible accident from these sources killing many people, but the problem is that they cannot supply anywhere even close to our energy needs. Solar is just completely worthless nowadays despite what Moonbeam might say, it is not even a hundredth of a percent of our power generation. Wind is actually decent and given the right condition the new technology can break even, however the number of places that are that good are limited, and wind can only supply limited amounts of power due to its variability. I will certainly give you that wind is a clean safe and useful source of power for the future (based even on economics not just environmentalism). However solar is a pipe dream it will take it at least 30 years to get to even 1 percent of our generation even under favorable circumstances. By that time many of the problems associated with nuclear power will also hopefully be eliminated (if we assume this is true for solar than nuclear should get the same benefit of the doubt).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Cabages

Originally posted by: Cabages
The French cool their rods in water for ~5 years and re-use them.

Could we not do this?

Can someone tell me how this doesnt get rid of the nuclear waste issue?

Im no expert, but is there more waste than just the rods?

It doesn't eliminate it entirely. It does reduce the amount (by more than 90% IIRC) and radioactivity of the remaining waste substantially, thus requiring secure storage for FAR less time then spent fuel alone. The shorter the half lives of the remaining radioactive material the less time a geologic waste repository has to retain it's integrity.

There is additional medium and low level waste from materials exposed to radiation but these are not nearly so problematic as the very hot spent fuel assemblies.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: piasabird
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Hundreds of acres of the best farmland ruined and contaminated for the next 300 years because of one nuclear accident. This rogue reactor was capped, but it is still dangerous. In the accident part of the reactor literally blew apart and sailed through the roof which was designed to contain the radiation and landed in a field nearby.

Maybe safeguards in American reactors are safer, however, There is no guarantee that there will never be another nuclear accident. I would not want a reactor near a large city. The USSR was lucky this reactor was in the middle of a sparsely inhabited location and they could evacuate the location quickly. However, they were unlucky also because valuable famland in a large area near good water has become unusable and unproductive for around 300 years from just one accident.

Solar power is safer.
Wind Power is safer.
Hydro Power is safer.

Maybe American reactors are safer?

Er, no. It is a proven fact that ours are better designed and have more safeguards than anything the Soviets ever built. Anyone who is familiar with the type and construction of the Chernobyl #4 reactor and how it differs from US designs would understand why it can't happen to ours.

The sarcophagus the Soviets erected to contain the reactor is now falling apart from lack of repair, funds, and surpassing it's design life. The project to replace it is stalled due to Russian politics and a funding crunch. There is considerable concern that the structure could collapse onto the wrecked reactor and again release very large amounts of highly radioactive dust.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: piasabird
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Hundreds of acres of the best farmland ruined and contaminated for the next 300 years because of one nuclear accident. This rogue reactor was capped, but it is still dangerous. In the accident part of the reactor literally blew apart and sailed through the roof which was designed to contain the radiation and landed in a field nearby.

Maybe safeguards in American reactors are safer, however, There is no guarantee that there will never be another nuclear accident. I would not want a reactor near a large city. The USSR was lucky this reactor was in the middle of a sparsely inhabited location and they could evacuate the location quickly. However, they were unlucky also because valuable famland in a large area near good water has become unusable and unproductive for around 300 years from just one accident.

Solar power is safer.
Wind Power is safer.
Hydro Power is safer.

So, you would rather have acid-rain, sulfer, ozone depleating gasses, and hundreds of tons of toxic slag produced by coal.

Then, lets not forget the ecological impacts of hydro, since it'll surely disrupt habitats. Finally, lets account for the fact that it'll take trillions of dollars to roll-out solar on a global scale. I imagine that you're going to reduce costs and cause zero impact?

Get out of the stars and stop the fud.

 

[Moonbeam]

The world energy problem is one humanity will face by will and choice. There are no cheap or easy answers as of yet. Nuclear is as big a pipe dream, as not here as yet, as solar. Here is a datum I find interesting:

Economically available uranium and thorium can provide only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of 10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and granite at a much higher cost of process energy.

This is just another reason not to go down a blind alley that creates deadly poisons that last thousands of years. A huge, Apollo style effort to develop solar and energy storage technology needs to begin now.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The world energy problem is one humanity will face by will and choice. There are no cheap or easy answers as of yet. Nuclear is as big a pipe dream, as not here as yet, as solar. Here is a datum I find interesting:

Economically available uranium and thorium can provide only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of 10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and granite at a much higher cost of process energy.

This is just another reason not to go down a blind alley that creates deadly poisons that last thousands of years. A huge, Apollo style effort to develop solar and energy storage technology needs to begin now.

I don't think anyone ever said that nuclear should be the sole power source. Solar power should be pursued WHEN it is economically viable (they have been saying wait a couple more years for the past decade and a half). You also simply cannot eliminate the need for large base load plants with solar electricity given the our limited/inefficient means to store surplus electricity (hydrogen and pumped storage). Nuclear energy is the logical choice if you want to curb emissions at all. Fusion will likely become a viable energy source within the next few decades eventually taking fission out of the mix completely.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The world energy problem is one humanity will face by will and choice. There are no cheap or easy answers as of yet. Nuclear is as big a pipe dream, as not here as yet, as solar. Here is a datum I find interesting:

Economically available uranium and thorium can provide only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of 10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and granite at a much higher cost of process energy.

This is just another reason not to go down a blind alley that creates deadly poisons that last thousands of years. A huge, Apollo style effort to develop solar and energy storage technology needs to begin now.

I don't think anyone ever said that nuclear should be the sole power source. Solar power should be pursued WHEN it is economically viable (they have been saying wait a couple more years for the past decade and a half). You also simply cannot eliminate the need for large base load plants with solar electricity given the our limited/inefficient means to store surplus electricity (hydrogen and pumped storage). Nuclear energy is the logical choice if you want to curb emissions at all. Fusion will likely become a viable energy source within the next few decades eventually taking fission out of the mix completely.

You simply fail to understand the meaning of logic when you apply it to a technology that creates deadly toxins that last thousands of years and see how much of what has been made has not been cleaned up. You are reasoning in a narrow left brained manner and not holistically. You are a techno-elitist and not a nursing mother. The answer is to vastly amp up the research development and deployment of solar.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The world energy problem is one humanity will face by will and choice. There are no cheap or easy answers as of yet. Nuclear is as big a pipe dream, as not here as yet, as solar. Here is a datum I find interesting:

Economically available uranium and thorium can provide only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of 10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and granite at a much higher cost of process energy.

This is just another reason not to go down a blind alley that creates deadly poisons that last thousands of years. A huge, Apollo style effort to develop solar and energy storage technology needs to begin now.

I don't think anyone ever said that nuclear should be the sole power source. Solar power should be pursued WHEN it is economically viable (they have been saying wait a couple more years for the past decade and a half). You also simply cannot eliminate the need for large base load plants with solar electricity given the our limited/inefficient means to store surplus electricity (hydrogen and pumped storage). Nuclear energy is the logical choice if you want to curb emissions at all. Fusion will likely become a viable energy source within the next few decades eventually taking fission out of the mix completely.

You simply fail to understand the meaning of logic when you apply it to a technology that creates deadly toxins that last thousands of years and see how much of what has been made has not been cleaned up. You are reasoning in a narrow left brained manner and not holistically. You are a techno-elitist and not a nursing mother. The answer is to vastly amp up the research development and deployment of solar.

No that is half of an answer and you refuse (repeatedly) to acknowledge the fact that it is. You are ignoring the problem because you know that there is currently no adequate power storage solution even if photovoltaics were competitive cost wise with conventional/nuclear generation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The world energy problem is one humanity will face by will and choice. There are no cheap or easy answers as of yet. Nuclear is as big a pipe dream, as not here as yet, as solar. Here is a datum I find interesting:

Economically available uranium and thorium can provide only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of 10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and granite at a much higher cost of process energy.

This is just another reason not to go down a blind alley that creates deadly poisons that last thousands of years. A huge, Apollo style effort to develop solar and energy storage technology needs to begin now.

I don't think anyone ever said that nuclear should be the sole power source. Solar power should be pursued WHEN it is economically viable (they have been saying wait a couple more years for the past decade and a half). You also simply cannot eliminate the need for large base load plants with solar electricity given the our limited/inefficient means to store surplus electricity (hydrogen and pumped storage). Nuclear energy is the logical choice if you want to curb emissions at all. Fusion will likely become a viable energy source within the next few decades eventually taking fission out of the mix completely.

You simply fail to understand the meaning of logic when you apply it to a technology that creates deadly toxins that last thousands of years and see how much of what has been made has not been cleaned up. You are reasoning in a narrow left brained manner and not holistically. You are a techno-elitist and not a nursing mother. The answer is to vastly amp up the research development and deployment of solar.

No that is half of an answer and you refuse (repeatedly) to acknowledge the fact that it is. You are ignoring the problem because you know that there is currently no adequate power storage solution even if photovoltaics were competitive cost wise with conventional/nuclear generation.

I gave you the north Africa link that showed .05% of the desert there can power all of Europe including transmission costs. The sun is always up somewhere on earth and Solar needs to go global. Water can be pumped up hill in the day and fall during the night. Flywheels can be used. Water can be cracked into H and O2 and later burned in a turbine. Fuel cells can generate electricity with hydrogen gas and new nano tech carbon fiber capacitance batteries are under development that will make the electric car a very real option.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The world energy problem is one humanity will face by will and choice. There are no cheap or easy answers as of yet. Nuclear is as big a pipe dream, as not here as yet, as solar. Here is a datum I find interesting:

Economically available uranium and thorium can provide only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of 10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and granite at a much higher cost of process energy.

This is just another reason not to go down a blind alley that creates deadly poisons that last thousands of years. A huge, Apollo style effort to develop solar and energy storage technology needs to begin now.

I don't know where you are getting your values from but they are demonstrably wrong.

From the IAEA (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html)
Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand - also called the "Red Book" - estimates the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than USD 130 per kg, to be about 4.7 million tonnes. Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years, the study states. Fast reactor technology would lengthen this period to over 2500 years.

However, world uranium resources in total are considered to be much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phosphates the study considers more than 35 million tonnes is available for exploitation.

Additional info can be found here: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOfUsableUranium

Utilizing fast reactors and thorium fuel, humanity will have an indefinite supply of energy. Fast reactors have already been proven technologically, the only reason why we aren't using them now is due to poltical hurdles (Carter/Clinton reprocessing bans) and the currently superior economics of LWR's.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The world energy problem is one humanity will face by will and choice. There are no cheap or easy answers as of yet. Nuclear is as big a pipe dream, as not here as yet, as solar. Here is a datum I find interesting:

Economically available uranium and thorium can provide only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of 10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and granite at a much higher cost of process energy.

This is just another reason not to go down a blind alley that creates deadly poisons that last thousands of years. A huge, Apollo style effort to develop solar and energy storage technology needs to begin now.

I don't think anyone ever said that nuclear should be the sole power source. Solar power should be pursued WHEN it is economically viable (they have been saying wait a couple more years for the past decade and a half). You also simply cannot eliminate the need for large base load plants with solar electricity given the our limited/inefficient means to store surplus electricity (hydrogen and pumped storage). Nuclear energy is the logical choice if you want to curb emissions at all. Fusion will likely become a viable energy source within the next few decades eventually taking fission out of the mix completely.

You simply fail to understand the meaning of logic when you apply it to a technology that creates deadly toxins that last thousands of years and see how much of what has been made has not been cleaned up. You are reasoning in a narrow left brained manner and not holistically. You are a techno-elitist and not a nursing mother. The answer is to vastly amp up the research development and deployment of solar.

No that is half of an answer and you refuse (repeatedly) to acknowledge the fact that it is. You are ignoring the problem because you know that there is currently no adequate power storage solution even if photovoltaics were competitive cost wise with conventional/nuclear generation.

I gave you the north Africa link that showed .05% of the desert there can power all of Europe including transmission costs. The sun is always up somewhere on earth and Solar needs to go global. Water can be pumped up hill in the day and fall during the night. Flywheels can be used. Water can be cracked into H and O2 and later burned in a turbine. Fuel cells can generate electricity with hydrogen gas and new nano tech carbon fiber capacitance batteries are under development that will make the electric car a very real option.

I find it humorous that you call nuclear power a pipe dream, yet describe to us your idea of using solar power to run pumps to store mechanical energy, lol.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The world energy problem is one humanity will face by will and choice. There are no cheap or easy answers as of yet. Nuclear is as big a pipe dream, as not here as yet, as solar. Here is a datum I find interesting:

Economically available uranium and thorium can provide only the order of 250,000 GWt-Y of energy. The doubling rate for nuclear fuels is too long for the breeding of adequate fuels to meet the energy needs of a prosperous world by 2050 [26]. Breeder systems would provide only the order of 10,000,000 GWt-Y or 3,000,000 GWe-Y of energy before requiring the use of uranium and thorium from sea water and granite at a much higher cost of process energy.

This is just another reason not to go down a blind alley that creates deadly poisons that last thousands of years. A huge, Apollo style effort to develop solar and energy storage technology needs to begin now.

I don't think anyone ever said that nuclear should be the sole power source. Solar power should be pursued WHEN it is economically viable (they have been saying wait a couple more years for the past decade and a half). You also simply cannot eliminate the need for large base load plants with solar electricity given the our limited/inefficient means to store surplus electricity (hydrogen and pumped storage). Nuclear energy is the logical choice if you want to curb emissions at all. Fusion will likely become a viable energy source within the next few decades eventually taking fission out of the mix completely.

You simply fail to understand the meaning of logic when you apply it to a technology that creates deadly toxins that last thousands of years and see how much of what has been made has not been cleaned up. You are reasoning in a narrow left brained manner and not holistically. You are a techno-elitist and not a nursing mother. The answer is to vastly amp up the research development and deployment of solar.

No that is half of an answer and you refuse (repeatedly) to acknowledge the fact that it is. You are ignoring the problem because you know that there is currently no adequate power storage solution even if photovoltaics were competitive cost wise with conventional/nuclear generation.

I gave you the north Africa link that showed .05% of the desert there can power all of Europe including transmission costs. The sun is always up somewhere on earth and Solar needs to go global. Water can be pumped up hill in the day and fall during the night. Flywheels can be used. Water can be cracked into H and O2 and later burned in a turbine. Fuel cells can generate electricity with hydrogen gas and new nano tech carbon fiber capacitance batteries are under development that will make the electric car a very real option.

I suppose you are aware of some realistic technology that negates transmission loss over vast distances. No? Didn't think so.

Using photovolatic power for electrolysis is horribly efficient. Pumped storage will only work in certain areas with the proper geography and water resources to make it feasible, you loose a substantial amount of energy doing this as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

ConsentratedSolarPower uses lenses to focus the sun's heat to create steam to drive turbines just as nuclear plants do, etc. Enough heat can be stored to work in cloudy weather or at night. A lifted and falling mass does not have to be water. Sand would do, or even a load of rocks. Compressed air is good too and can be used to power cars.

 

[BrownTown]

What is your profession MoonBeam if you don't mind me asking? I'm not sure you have a good understanding of the engineering problems involved with the technology you espouse. It's just that alot of the environmental types think you can just want these problems to be solved enough and they will go away, but its not the hippies who are gonna solve them its the engineers who have to do all the work and yet we are the ones who get blamed for being polluting and stuff in the first place. Its just a case of having your cake and eating it too. IF you want alot of cheap energy than that can be done, if you want CO2 free energy that can be done, if you want solar energy that can be done, but there is a PRICE that has to be paid, and in the case of solar it is ENOURMOUS, even the "Apollo style program" would not be enough.

 

[Rustican]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
ConsentratedSolarPower uses lenses to focus the sun's heat to create steam to drive turbines just as nuclear plants do, etc. Enough heat can be stored to work in cloudy weather or at night. A lifted and falling mass does not have to be water. Sand would do, or even a load of rocks. Compressed air is good too and can be used to power cars.

Ok so now we are storing heat... hm... so we build a giant thermos or containment vessel with an inner chamber to hold some super heated liquid and a outer chamber with a vacuum between the two for insulation. Exactly on what size scale do you plan to do this also how do you plan to create such a large vaccum? If you want less efficient insulation then use some foam or the tiles they use for the space shuttle. How many days worth of heat do you want to store? Imagine the size of the reservoir for a weeks worth of heat energy.

Sand and rocks? So you're going to pile them up on a hill and roll them down? Water storage makes sense because pumping is a very efficient method of moving liquid from low level to a higher level. Then you have turbines that are powered from releasing water at a higher level to a lower level. Hauling up rocks and sand uses a lot more energy and how do you plan to harness the energy released by dropping sand and rocks?

Compressed air is a nice idea idea for cars. but does it make sense to scale that up to an industrial level? Who would want to live next to a giant pressurized container?

 

[F1N3ST]

Nucluear power is the cleanest power, no emissions. It is just steam coming out of the top that will soon be converted to hydrogen. I live by Fermi 2 in Michigan, I do know they covered up a 'meltdown', there was a cooling system failure and they locked down the plant and told no one.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sure or we can put the mirrors in space and create vast ponds of liquid magma for solar induced geothermal. Sand and rocks could go in maglev trains that run up hill in the day and run down hill at night generating electricity. They could carry people too. Up to high places in day time, down at night. Flywheels are good too.

 

[voodoodrul]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
For the US and any allies of the US, YES. For any member of the Axis of Evil, NO. You can't trust evildoers with nuclear power, just look at the historic track record of the lunatics that have had nuclear power.

Axis of Evil.. lmao! Awesome.. Aren't we past all this propaganda? Can you even think for yourself?.. Wow..

I wouldn't say anyone with nuclear capability is any better than any other country. We are guilty of using it, to say, kill thousands of people.. The US is the only country to detonate a nuclear bomb in an inhabited city..

Amazing..

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: voodoodrul

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
For the US and any allies of the US, YES. For any member of the Axis of Evil, NO. You can't trust evildoers with nuclear power, just look at the historic track record of the lunatics that have had nuclear power.

Axis of Evil.. lmao! Awesome.. Aren't we past all this propaganda? Can you even think for yourself?.. Wow..

I wouldn't say anyone with nuclear capability is any better than any other country. We are guilty of using it, to say, kill thousands of people.. The US is the only country to detonate a nuclear bomb in an inhabited city..

Amazing..

So true, but not in the way you think. Hehe. He was making the same point as you.