Ultimately pretty much everything these days condenses down to energy. This problem of energy takes on two forms, first the production of energy and secondly the storage and transmission of energy. Tonight, as I am kind of lazy and want to go bake some bread, so I think I will spare the latter tell tomorrow. As you know we get most of our energy from fossil fuels, which cause many problems not only Global Warming and the release of pollutants but also the fact that we are burning something that chemically can be used for a lot more. Many alternatives have been listed toward producing energy that is clean and efficient. My favorite currently is nuclear power because it is actually very environmentally friendly and with nuclear reprocessing we can eliminate almost 95% of the waste and that which remains has a much shorter half-life than traditional nuclear waste. Nuclear makes up an overwhelming majority of the energy production of France and Japan and they have had no significant accidents which caused environmental damage. Also the amount of regulation and safety in plants makes the probability of meltdown minimal.
The other energy solutions I think should function as a secondary role to help produce peak usage electricity and electricity for remote areas. Solar is ok, it has some problems because the materials which produce it are toxic so they cause some pollution but with the proper processes it can be mitigated. Wind is decent but it also has some problems because it is not very efficient and also because it has some adverse affects of bird populations. Geothermal and tidal energy are great because they do not have any major environmental impacts that I know of but they are limited in their scope. Iceland has very effectively implemented geothermal to the point that they have a great excess of energy so they can do manufacturing which is energy intensive like Aluminum production very cheaply. Hydropower in the form of dams is very detrimental to aquatic ecosystems and thus should be avoided.
But what about the future of energy? Fusion power is a great concept and if we ever get it implemented it will be great, but the technological complexity of the task make me wonder if it is viable in any the time frame of the next hundred years. Also even it requires inputs such as tritium and deuterium which are hard to produce. Therefore I see another possibility for the long term future of energy that is organic solar energy. I think that we should invest a lot in trying to harness the process of photosynthesis to produce very clean energy which requires inputs which are common and nonpolluting.
My ideal energy policy would be similar to what John McCain released today in that it wants to drastically increase the number of nuclear plants; he wants 45 more plants by 2030. I would also create a Manhattan project to develop new more efficient and clean forms of energy production, how exactly this would work I think may be the subject of another entry as this one it way to long.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Amen [hard enter]
Are you aware of this fusion program?
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
World's Simplest Fusion Reactor Revisited
Starting A Fusion Program In Your Home Town
John McCain is:
A Fusion President
Inertial electrostatic confinement is very interesting and I see that it has some prominent supporters which lend it credibility such as the University of Wisconsin and many people from the national labs. When I was at the ANS student conference last February I saw a presentation on this type of fusion being used to emit neutrons which would be used to detect nuclear materials at border crossings and ports because they would stimulate fission, which could be detected. I did not know that it had the potential to be economically viable. It is relatively inexpensive compared to the tokamaks so I would generally support increasing funding to do research into it. But I am usually pretty liberal when it comes giving out funding, as I do research myself.
As a member of the general public who knows very little about how alternative energy sources work much less how fossil fuel works currently, I have to ask, if nuclear power is that great, why is there a huge controversy in putting its waste into that mountainous area in NV(?) I think that basic common sense says that if it were really that easy to dispose of even after nuclear reprocessing, it wouldn't create such a firestorm, because there must be SOMETHING about it that makes it feared by the public aside from ignorance (perhaps radiation or the fact that we are burying nuclear waste into the earth, the only habitat we have to live in and grow our food/draw water from (not to get hippie on you)). Please explain if nuclear reprocessing is already in use and how it could possibly be safe, taking into consideration the fact that it is essentially taking over more land, and the possibility of the world taking on a nuclear energy solution - where do your propose the waste goes? It cannot all stay on earth, so be realistic.
In the United States nuclear reprocessing is not being used currently. There was a ban on reprocessing because of proliferation concerns which was only recently lifted. Reprocessing has been used in other countries to great success which is why the ban was lifted so that we can begin taking part in this process. Reprocessing would drastically reduce the amount of waste produced making large repositories of waste unnecessary.
With that being said large repositories of waste do not pose any significant risks to the public and most of the opposition is based on fear and propaganda proliferated by “environmentalists” who are antinuclear energy. These repositories of waste are in very stable regions and have enormous amounts of safeguards as the nuclear industry is the most regulated industry in the US. One example of the safety of nuclear waste storage is at the WIPP site in Carlsbad, NM. At this site the waste is stored over 2000 feet underground in a salt formation. Because of nuclear decay the waste produces heat, this heat then will melt the salt totally encapsulating the waste in a salt formation permanently sealing it off so that it cannot leak is a breach was to occur. The only major concern with nuclear repositories is not when the waste is in the storage facility, but when it is being prepared for storage and transported to the site. Waste is carried in shipping casks which are designed to standup to virtually anything, you can read the standards for yourself on the NRC’s website.
Overall because of the amount of regulation of the industry nuclear power is extremely safe and with reprocessing the waste problem is drastically reduced as 95% of the fuel can be reused and the remaining waste has much shorter half-lives than the uranium so it will drop down to safe levels more quickly.
Post a Comment