People constantly talk on here about what they think we need to do to solve the current energy problem.

 

 

Let's condense these ideas into one thread.

 

There is the Pickens' Plan which uses the midwest as a wind turbine power plant and natural gas to fuel our vehicles, not a bad idea.

 

My preference, which I have already gone over, is the idea of building pebble-bed nuclear reactors which are safer and have the same output as the traditional rod based ones. This is of course provided that we can't develop fusion reactors anytime soon.

 

Use excess fossil fuel from inactive power plants to turn into fuel for vehicles, OR we can convert to natural gas, or shoot we could even run cars on electric grids that would be fueled by the power from the pebble-bed reactors. Just throwing things out there.

The potential problem I see with Pickens' plan is that converting cars to run on natural gas on a large scale would drive up home heating costs. I am sure that Mr. Pickens has substantial holdings in natural gas and stands to make as much or more money on gas as he will wind energy (which is fine with me). However, I would rather see us use coal for gasoline and reserve natural gas mostly for home heating.

No one has anything to say here?

 

This is likely to be the biggest issue this election and NO ONE other than Acesfull and myself has any comment on it?

Increase domestic drilling

 

Increased use of nuclear

 

Better (increased) use of coal

 

Wind and solar as alternatives when available and feesable

No one has anything to say here?

 

I do not have the technical knowledge of the different types of energy and their use in solving our current problems to comment in depth. However, I think any energy policy should satisfy several parameters for it to be valid.

A recognition that oil and other nonrenewable resources will run out and will accordingly be only a minor part of a long term solution.

Will place no further restrictions on the use of oil, yet, could potentially grandfather in more stringent environmental regulations as alternatives begin to replace oil.

Create a greater demand for viable alternative and renewable replacements through economic incentives.

No one has anything to say here?

 

This is likely to be the biggest issue this election and NO ONE other than Acesfull and myself has any comment on it?

I am very unknowledgable on what the difference between all of the various types of nuclear reactors are. If you could explain it to me in a layman's' terms (or send me somewhere that I can read/comprehend), I'd greatly appreciate it and be more than happy to read further.

 

FWIW, income tax reform IMO is as high up on the list of political issues that are vital to our society and largely ignored.

I am for anything that will cause less damage to the environment than we are currently doing. IMO, it doesn't matter how cheaply we can run are cars if we cant breathe.

No one has anything to say here?

 

This is likely to be the biggest issue this election and NO ONE other than Acesfull and myself has any comment on it?

 

I understood very little of what you said in your first post.

And I consider myself above average in knowledge in many things.

Imagine how that is going to fly over the heads of SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many people.

From an ignorant person on this matter, it surely seems that we should be able to use the sun more for heating of homes and buildings than we do.

I understood very little of what you said in your first post.

And I consider myself above average in knowledge in many things.

Imagine how that is going to fly over the heads of SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many people.

 

What'd you miss? Maybe I can explain further. :thumb:

I am for anything that will cause less damage to the environment than we are currently doing. IMO, it doesn't matter how cheaply we can run are cars if we cant breathe.

 

 

Well then we probably need to work on reforestation and so on but that is an issue seperate from what I am proposing anyway.

I am very unknowledgable on what the difference between all of the various types of nuclear reactors are. If you could explain it to me in a layman's' terms (or send me somewhere that I can read/comprehend), I'd greatly appreciate it and be more than happy to read further.

 

FWIW, income tax reform IMO is as high up on the list of political issues that are vital to our society and largely ignored.

 

 

When I get a chance I will come back in here and go into more detail on the two primary reactor types in question here. The fuel rod type and pebble bed.

 

Fusion is a dream on the horizon right now, so it isn't really in the discussion.

In a nuclear reactor the essential thing to remember is that nuclear fission (i.e. splitting of an atom) is the primary means of generating energy. In order to do so a fuel source is needed, in the case of most reactors it is uranium or plutonium. These elements generate heat and the heat in turn is used to generate electricity in one form or another.

 

The most common form of nuclear reactor, which most people I assume are familiar with, is the rod based nuclear reactor. These reactors use rods of the fissionable element (i.e. uranium, etc.) to generate heat while being cooled by water. The heat is then used to generate steam which in turn is used by the turbines to generate electricity. For the sake of controlling the nuclear reaction usually lead rods(known as control rods) can be raised or lowered depending on whether the reaction needs to be increased or decreased for the sake of power needs.

 

The biggest failings of these types of reactors is the need for extensive and complex piping for both the coolant water which is separate from the water used to make the steam which turns the turbines. Additionally they are mechanically complex in their operations as there are multiple parts involved and with the usage of pressurized steam the possibility of an accident could lead to serious damage to the facilities. That said, proper safety regulations and inspections in conjunction with qualified and certified individuals running the plants are instrumental in the safety of these reactors. The failing of was the fact that it was A) Soviet, B) Understaffed and C) Poorly staffed by engineers who were not qualified to operate a nuclear power plant.

These types of reactors also leave large amounts of nuclear waste that needs to be stored before it is safely neutral.

Pebble bed reactors on the other hand operate a little differently. The fissionable materials are held in tiny graphite spheres which not only serve to seal and protect the fissionable element but also turn each pebble into a miniature nuclear reactor. Enough of these pebbles together allows the reactor to reach critical mass and as such generate power. Pebble bed reactors also do not use the traditional methods of generating power. An inert gas is used to circulate and cool the reactor while allowing the heat to be used to therefore generate electricity.

These plants can also be given control rods for further safety but the nature of the cooling gas and he pebbles themselves give these reactors a passive safety that far exceeds that of conventional reactors. The reactor is cooled by an inert, fireproof gas, so it cannot have a steam explosion as a light-water reactor can. The coolant has no phase transitions(doesn’t change states) —it starts as a gas and remains a gas.

The moderator is solid carbon. It does not act as a coolant, move, or have phase transitions (i.e. between liquid and gas) as the light water in conventional reactors does.

 

A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed. This was tested in Germany and none of the pebbles were in any way damaged.

Also these reactors can actually allow for the recycling of fissionable materials which were already used in previous fuel rod reactors and in decomissioned nuclear weapons. On top of that they can be stored more securely and safely on account of the passive safety built into the graphite surrounding the pebbles.

Make any sense?

Thanks a lot. One question (2-part), at the moment:

 

1) One concern about nuclear is that I have heard that there is waste products associated with it. Is there an (environmentally-sound) way to:

A) Assure that the waste can be disposed of (and not break down whatever container it is in?

B) These graphite pebbels are strong enough to not get "eroded" (or whatever the correct term would be) by these nuclear elements?

 

P.S. I am sure the above is riddled with multiple errors in terms of scientific terminology. Good luck getting through it, and feel free to correct and/or ridicule me.

Pep, since I am now voting for you in the Senatorial Election, as one of your constituents, I'd like for you to answer the above question :lol: