The Green New Deal

lomiller said:
Half life of the most dangerous isotopes can be a little misleading. Part of the problem with waste from current generation reactors is that it’s mostly fuel and still undergoing relatively rapid decay compared to what you'd see in nature. While the individual isotopes may not last long, they can continue to be produced, albeit at lower levels, for a very long time.

Fast reactors where nearly all the fuel is consumed or re-used will not only produce much less waste, but hopefully what waste they do produce will ultimately be safer because it will be producing less in the way of dangerous isotopes. I say hopefully because these are extremely immature technologies so it’s to draw firm conclusions.
Click to expand...


We need to build a fast reactor so we can test the science
 
acbytesla said:
We need to build a fast reactor so we can test the science
Click to expand...

What we need are commercial designs. That’s where the things that only works in theory get separated from the practical real world implementation. Can-Du reactors that have been around for decades already have many of the desired properties of fast reactors, they can breed Thorium and other unenriched fuels into usable fuel while they run and they fail (relatively) safely because they are sub-critical without their coolant.

Cost, even with far lighter containment facilities, and the amount of heavy water they require basically mean the designs are somewhat limited in their ability to compete, so they probably are not “the answer” but this is something you find out in production not in the lab.
 
lomiller said:
What we need are commercial designs. That’s where the things that only works in theory get separated from the practical real world implementation. Can-Du reactors that have been around for decades already have many of the desired properties of fast reactors, they can breed Thorium and other unenriched fuels into usable fuel while they run and they fail (relatively) safely because they are sub-critical without their coolant.

Cost, even with far lighter containment facilities, and the amount of heavy water they require basically mean the designs are somewhat limited in their ability to compete, so they probably are not “the answer” but this is something you find out in production not in the lab.
Click to expand...

Read this article. It makes the point better than I do. It's on the DOE website

Private companies have already invested more than $1 billion in new reactor designs that will be smaller, more affordable, highly flexible and extremely safe. So safe, in fact, that in the event of a problem, human intervention is not necessary.

More than 40 U.S. companies are already working on these incredible reactor designs that could help power our homes, provide clean water, and decarbonize energy-intensive industries.

There’s just one problem…

The United States doesn’t have a facility to effectively test and qualify the materials needed to develop some of these advanced reactors.

That’s why it is imperative that the U.S. Department of Energy moves forward with its plans to build a versatile test reactor, or VTR.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-theres-definite-need-fast-test-reactor
Click to expand...
 
lomiller said:
What we need are commercial designs. That’s where the things that only works in theory get separated from the practical real world implementation. Can-Du reactors that have been around for decades already have many of the desired properties of fast reactors, they can breed Thorium and other unenriched fuels into usable fuel while they run and they fail (relatively) safely because they are sub-critical without their coolant.

Cost, even with far lighter containment facilities, and the amount of heavy water they require basically mean the designs are somewhat limited in their ability to compete, so they probably are not “the answer” but this is something you find out in production not in the lab.
Click to expand...

What about systems that use protons smashing into heavy targets generating thermal neutrons to bring sub-critical cores to criticality? The systems have been tested, but afaik haven't yet resulted in a commercial power system.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
What about systems that use protons smashing into heavy targets generating thermal neutrons to bring sub-critical cores to criticality? The systems have been tested, but afaik haven't yet resulted in a commercial power system.
Click to expand...

The reason the government needs an experimental test reactor lab is so it can approved licence new designs for commercial use.
 
Taking multiple Lyft rides when you live less than a mile from your office is environmentally friendly or so I hear
 
acbytesla said:
NIMBYism doesn't make it a myth.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does. The land in the article isn't vacant. It's private property that already has an owner other than the person who wants to use it.

The myth is that there's a bunch of land out there that's free for the taking. All the government has to do is put some solar panels on it and pow! Renewable energy. But sometimes the land in question isn't actually free for the taking. It's mythical free land.
 
theprestige said:
Actually, it does. The land in the article isn't vacant. It's private property that already has an owner other than the person who wants to use it.

The myth is that there's a bunch of land out there that's free for the taking. All the government has to do is put some solar panels on it and pow! Renewable energy. But sometimes the land in question isn't actually free for the taking. It's mythical free land.
Click to expand...

Or it is federal land that has environmental issues. Endangered species and such. The Ivanpah Solar Thermal power plant construction resulted in the deaths of a number of desert tortoise. Tehachapi pass wind power generation claims a lot of migrating raptors.

If you really want to scale this up to a level needed to replace coal (assuming a non-nuclear scenario) the impacts to federal lands and undeveloped private lands would be significant.

I am all for scaling out carbon based power. Electric cars, plug-in hybrids, electric rail-based mass transit, all that. But without nuclear in the mix, all that renewable is going to take up a lot of space, and not always in places currently served by existing powerlines.
 
theprestige said:
Actually, it does. The land in the article isn't vacant. It's private property that already has an owner other than the person who wants to use it.

The myth is that there's a bunch of land out there that's free for the taking. All the government has to do is put some solar panels on it and pow! Renewable energy. But sometimes the land in question isn't actually free for the taking. It's mythical free land.
Click to expand...

Defends on what you mean be "free". I meant available. Not that it is totally valueless.

The truth is there are huge swaths of places to place solar panels including and especially rooftops. I see strip mall after strip mall with flat roofs which easily can be used for power generation. I've driven many a time through huge parts of Texas, Utah, Idaho, OregonWashington, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado etc where almost nothing grows and very little lives.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Notice the last two?
Provide all members of society a job guarantee programme to assure a living wage job.
Basic income programmes and universal health care.
Click to expand...

You know it's just a resolution and not an actual law. You don't have to support every piece of it in order to support it's overall goals.

I, for example, would like to see nuclear power added to the mix. I would also like to see universal health care, but that's a separate issue. I don't think it's the government's job to make sure everyone has a job, but the government can certainly help job growth.

This "socialist" crap is a red herring. Don't let it stop you from seeing the whole picture.
 
acbytesla said:
Defends on what you mean be "free". I meant available. Not that it is totally valueless.
Click to expand...
I understood that you meant "available". My point is that the availability of this land is a myth. The government would have to do something to make it available. Either buy it, or eminent domain it, or something like that.

The truth is there are huge swaths of places to place solar panels including and especially rooftops. I see strip mall after strip mall with flat roofs which easily can be used for power generation. I've driven many a time through huge parts of Texas, Utah, Idaho, OregonWashington, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado etc where almost nothing grows and very little lives.
Click to expand...

Rooftops are not available to you to put solar panels on them. They're available to their owners, who may or may not want to do that.

Those huge areas where "almost nothing grows and very little lives" aren't necessarily available to you or anyone else other than the owner.

And you'd be surprised how much stuff grows and lives on apparently barren tracts of land. Especially when you start doing environmental reviews and seeking input from conservation groups.

ETA: Basically, what the vacant land mythology means is that yes: If you claim a bunch of private property by eminent domain, and give ecologists and conservationists a middle finger the size of Trump's ego, there's plenty of land available for solar and wind installations.
 
Last edited:
Sooner or later the "Okay we need to do this so we don't... like destroy the planet" and the "Well you can't because it's mine" mentalities are going to become impossible to keep in perfect harmony.

And nobody is going to care who owns the cinder.
 
theprestige said:
I understood that you meant "available". My point is that the availability of this land is a myth. The government would have to do something to make it available. Either buy it, or eminent domain it, or something like that.



Rooftops are not available to you to put solar panels on them. They're available to their owners, who may or may not want to do that.

Those huge areas where "almost nothing grows and very little lives" aren't necessarily available to you or anyone else other than the owner.

And you'd be surprised how much stuff grows and lives on apparently barren tracts of land. Especially when you start doing environmental reviews and seeking input from conservation groups.

ETA: Basically, what the vacant land mythology means is that yes: If you claim a bunch of private property by eminent domain, and give ecologists and conservationists a middle finger the size of Trump's ego, there's plenty of land available for solar and wind installations.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
Sooner or later the "Okay we need to do this so we don't... like destroy the planet" and the "Well you can't because it's mine" mentalities are going to become impossible to keep in perfect harmony.

And nobody is going to care who owns the cinder.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:


I'm with Joe.
 
And the thing is in much the same way the Democracy has to be more then three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for dinner, Socialism has to be more than "Communism but it is for your own good so it's okay" and so forth, Libertarianism has to be more then a reflexive "You can't tell me what to do."

The last thing I'm advocating for is giving the government a blank check to land grab. Anything of this nature should be done with oversight, should be done with extreme valid reasons.
 
acbytesla said:
Try an E-bike. These are only growing in popularity.
Click to expand...

Walking is even better.

I wonder what the total cost is per horsepower (or mile?) for petrol vs charging an e-bike on the power grid. Heck may as well calculate it for human power as well - cost of getting food and calories to the table, etc. If only we had less people.
 
acbytesla said:
:thumbsup:


I'm with Joe.
Click to expand...

As am I.

Here's the point, though: The idea that this land you need is available for the taking is a myth. It's not. In order to do what you and Joe believe is necessary, you need to be honest with yourself and with the rest of us.

Eminent domain exists for a reason. Sometimes the state really does have a compelling interest in taking private property. If that's what has to happen, to get the solar and wind coverage you need, then say so.

Don't try to sell this renewable energy transformation with the myth that there's plenty of land lying around available for the purpose. Either find land that is actually already available, or else start dealing with the people who actually have a say over the availability of the land you want.

And please don't equivocate between "available because the government already owns it" and "available, and the government just has to seize it", in order to try to dispel the myth. Be clear, and be honest. Please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom