Re: nuclear power, titles of topics:

[Rick Tarara <rbtarara@SPRYNET.COM>]

A few comments from Boise:

Nuclear must certainly be reconsidered as an option if we take global
warming as a serious threat.  One big advantage of Nuclear (and coal) is
high density energy production, as opposed to solar and wind.  This is
important for certain regions--like east of the Mississippi!  To be sure,
nuclear may only be a 100 year option, but then plants only have a 40-60
year life.

To understand the difficulty in going to something like wind, first we need
to recognize that to move away from the fossil fuels also means moving to an
more electrical infrastructure and useage since most of the alternative
energies make electricity--at least as the primary output.  Now is we
imagine Wind providing say 20% of our _total_ energy within some short time
frame--say 25 years--and recognize that even in ideal locations the average
output of a wind generator runs under 30% of its peak output, then you need
3-4 MILLION wind generators of reasonably large size (50 m high tower with
50 m span).  While the land can still be grazed or farmed you need something
like 150,000 square miles for the siting.  The next problem is that the
generators probably have something like a 25 year lifetime so will need to
be replaced often.  Finally, if you are really relying on getting the full
output of the system, you had better be able to store at least some of the
wind generated energy for the day when there is little wind over the region
(probably Nebraska and the Dakotas) where most of the generators would be
placed.  This at least adds cost to the system (hydrogen conversion plants,
pumped storage, or other such systems) and may add to the number of wind
generators needed.  The cost of all this runs into the trillions of
dollars--about 10 trillion if you build this system over 100 years--and in
the end you still need to provide the other 80% of the needed energy.  The
numbers for solar are similar and things like biomass require so much land
as to be unreasonable.  In the end--once we either decide to stop using
fossil fuels or run out--we had better have something like fusion working or
we may have to go to exotic things like space-based solar collection
satellites which will run to really big bucks.

Are we really that power hungry or is energy the 'blood' of technological
societies?  While there is no doubt that we do waste resources, if one does
the numbers, the 'fat' is not as much as one might assume.  It is just wrong
to compare the per capita energy use of say the US and Japan and say that
because Japan is at 40% of the US that the US could get that much more
efficient.  The size of a country and the associated transportation costs is
a big factor in energy usage.  A country with 330 people per square
kilometer is going to have an easier time being energy efficient than one
with 30 people per square kilometer.  One must also account for how energy
use is accounted when a country imports much of its raw materials and goods
versus one that mines, manufactures, and ships its own.  Switzerland is a
prime example of this where the numbers make it look super energy efficient
while in fact the Swiss live off the energy use of Germany, Italy, France,
etc.  So in the end something on the order of a 25% reduction in energy use
without a major effect on the living standard is possible for a country like
the US, a 50-60% reduction is probably never going to happen.

Rick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: nuclear power, titles of topics:


> The way Ludwik worded his message sort of makes it sound as if I support
coal burning as our energy source for the near future.  For the record, I do
not.  I support nuclear fission.
> I definitely do not support burning natural gas for electricity because I
think we need to conserve natural gas as the near-future option for home
heating.  That's because it is a readily transportable and relatively clean
way to heat homes and hot water, and the transport system is in place.  It
does generate CO2, but I still think it is the best current option for home
heating.  At some point I assume we will heat all homes electrically, but we
aren't ready for that yet.
> There are some relatively clean ways to burn coal.  The plant being built
near my home not only burns coal, but also garbage... 50/50.  The fuel is
pelletized and drops into a sealed combustion chamber that is sort of like a
fluidized-bed furnace.  The product is syn-gas which then runs a gas
turbine.  Pilot plants indicate this is a very clean way to burn coal and
also get rid of some garbage.  But it still generates CO2, and that is the
main reason I don't think it is a long-term solution.  Also, many rail cars
of fuel will come in each day and cause increased train traffic.  (The
cooling tower will evaporate a lot of water and this summer we don't have
much water to spare. But water consumption would also be needed if we
located a nuclear facility in my region where we don't have a large river or
a large lake.)
> I support development of wind power, but I don't think it will be able to
support a large percentage of our needs.  I also wonder about the visual
pollution.  I am already tired of all the cellular telephone towers that
have sprung up... they're all over the place.  What a visual blight!
> Of course I also support hydro and solar.
>
> However, if the greenhouse effect is real, then I think we need to stop
burning carbon-based fuels quite soon.  The nuclear option may not be the
real long-term solution, but like Ludwik says, it is a good option for the
next 50 to 100 years.
> Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D. Phone/voice-mail: 419-358-3270
> Professor of Chemistry & Physics FAX: 419-358-3323
> Chairman, Science Department E-Mail edmiston@bluffton.edu
> Bluffton College
> 280 West College Avenue
> Bluffton, OH 45817