Lockneed breakthough in fusion reactors.

[mike3]

So what would it take to, say, convert to 100% nuclear (which also implies either switching out the entire auto and truck fleet for EVs or setting up synthetic gasoline plants powered by nuclear power, though EVs would probably be more efficient) over the next 60 years in America? Or, at least, to convert to enough nuclear so as to go above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to meeting strict emissions targets in a timeframe like that or less?

 

[McHrozni]

So what would it take to, say, convert to 100% nuclear (which also implies either switching out the entire auto and truck fleet for EVs or setting up synthetic gasoline plants powered by nuclear power, though EVs would probably be more efficient) over the next 60 years in America? Or, at least, to convert to enough nuclear so as to go above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to meeting strict emissions targets in a timeframe like that or less?

100% nuclear is unfeasible, because nuclear can't be used to respond quickly to demand changes. Nuclear plus hydro plus some fossil (or recently alive biomass) would work. A very quick calculation shows that US produces approximately 19% of power using 100 reactors, so roughly another 250-300 reactors, depending on how much wind and solar (and other) power is utilized. If you want to move as much of traffic to electric power as possible you need to approximately double that to some 600 reactors or so, at a cost of some $10 billion each. You can cut down the costs somewhat by building multiple reactors in one power plant, but we're talking about an investment in the general vicinity of 20-30% of US GDP spread over several years (up to a decade). Roughly the entire US military spending over two presidential terms would be in the correct order of magnitude. Expensive and difficult, but actually within the realm of possibility.
However ... that's the easy and cheap part. The much more difficult part is replacing all the established infrastructure, building new railroads for freight where needed, etc, while fighting a massive political battle against oil lobby, against states with oil production, against Greenpeace, against Russian and Saudi money, against car manufacturers that spend good money on engines and so on and on.

It would be extremely difficult to do without this last bit, I'd say "maybe possible", but no more. This last bit is more difficult than the rest combined.

McHrozni

 

[macdoc]

The curve on solar gain is such that 100% nuclear makes no sense but certainly if you could replace the 600 active coal plants in the US with regional nuclear facilities - notably IFR that could use existing stored fuel rods.

Here is a study looking at a retirement program for coal

Ripe for Retirement: An Economic Analysis of the U.S. Coal Fleet — 2013 Update

The nation's fleet of coal plants continues to become less and less economically competitive. Many older, dirtier, and underutilized coal units simply cannot compete with natural gas or wind power.

As many as 329 coal-fired power generators in 38 states — representing 58.7 gigawatts (GW) of power capacity — are no longer economically competitive compared to a typical existing natural gas plant. They are ripe for retirement and should be considered for closure.

more
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/...mic-analysis-us-coal-plants.html#.VFIqcod1aGM

There is a lot of controversy over whether gas presents a much cleaner alternative but at least you get a sense of what the scale of the problem is.

The good news is this

The original Ripe for Retirement analysis (2012) identified up to 353 (59 GW) generators as ripe for retirement when compared to a typical existing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plant. As of December 2013, 73 of these units (10 GW) have either retired or been announced for retirement.

So it is happening albeit slowly and there are finally a couple of nukes in the works but low gas prices have threatened the viability.

Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that six new units may come on line by 2020, four of those resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.
However, lower gas prices since 2009 have put the economic viability of some existing reactors and proposed projects in doubt.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/

 

[3point14]

The "*cough*nuclearships*cough*" didn't make it into the article. Saying you can get 100 MW in a small volume is like blowing a kiss and flashing some skin at the US Navy.

Resisto-jets might take some development. Best to keep this at the airport and make fuel from air and water.

Indeed. I think the US navy would be overjoyed at the thought they could fuel their fast jets with seawater.

 

[3point14]

Strictly speaking, they do produce energy. They just don't produce more energy than it takes to run them.

I honestly thought I'd read that someone, somewhere had manged to get more energy out than they'd put in. I remember being quite excited about it. Rats.

Must read entire thread before positng:

I think they broke that barrier last year, albeit barely.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

 

[mike3]

The curve on solar gain is such that 100% nuclear makes no sense but certainly if you could replace the 600 active coal plants in the US with regional nuclear facilities - notably IFR that could use existing stored fuel rods.

So what would it cost to replace those plants with nuclear of the type mentioned earlier here, that has "no chance of meltdown, and produce waste that is trivial to handle"?

Here is a study looking at a retirement program for coal


more
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/...mic-analysis-us-coal-plants.html#.VFIqcod1aGM

There is a lot of controversy over whether gas presents a much cleaner alternative but at least you get a sense of what the scale of the problem is.

The good news is this



So it is happening albeit slowly and there are finally a couple of nukes in the works but low gas prices have threatened the viability.



http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/

What if you get Government(tm) involved in the economy to tax fossil fuels in proportion to their harm to the environment, or otherwise get environmental costs brought in to the price? As with climate change, there is a ticking clock.

 

[mike3]

100% nuclear is unfeasible, because nuclear can't be used to respond quickly to demand changes. Nuclear plus hydro plus some fossil (or recently alive biomass) would work. A very quick calculation shows that US produces approximately 19% of power using 100 reactors, so roughly another 250-300 reactors, depending on how much wind and solar (and other) power is utilized. If you want to move as much of traffic to electric power as possible you need to approximately double that to some 600 reactors or so, at a cost of some $10 billion each. You can cut down the costs somewhat by building multiple reactors in one power plant, but we're talking about an investment in the general vicinity of 20-30% of US GDP spread over several years (up to a decade). Roughly the entire US military spending over two presidential terms would be in the correct order of magnitude. Expensive and difficult, but actually within the realm of possibility.
However ... that's the easy and cheap part. The much more difficult part is replacing all the established infrastructure, building new railroads for freight where needed, etc, while fighting a massive political battle against oil lobby, against states with oil production, against Greenpeace, against Russian and Saudi money, against car manufacturers that spend good money on engines and so on and on.

It would be extremely difficult to do without this last bit, I'd say "maybe possible", but no more. This last bit is more difficult than the rest combined.

McHrozni

What about if the change is spread over 60 years, as opposed to just 8?

 

[macdoc]

What if you get Government(tm) involved in the economy to tax fossil fuels in proportion to their harm to the environment, or otherwise get environmental costs brought in to the price? As with climate change, there is a ticking clock.

That is what Sweden and Norway have done since the 90s - but nuclear is only one aspect of carbon neutral.
Certainly a carbon tax is the way to go and support ( not necessarily subsidize ) carbon neutral solutions.
Offering low interest long term financing for say retrofitting multi unit housing and offices provides good returns fairly quickly without picking one technology over another.

Nuclear tho does require state underwriting and given the advances in solar and storage and indeed in efficiency ( lighting notably ) nuclear is difficult given it's massive red tape burden.

60 years is an immense time frame from a technical standpoint.
Representing the very beginning of the nuclear power age looking backwards.

Even the most progressive country Sweden is on a 40 year time frame for carbon neutral tho smaller Denmark might get there faster.

30 years to eliminate coal should be feasible for all first world and some developing nations.
That should be job one....and it is moving along...I do fear that a change in politics will harm that as it has in Australia and Canada....both dinosaurs.

 

[McHrozni]

What about if the change is spread over 60 years, as opposed to just 8?

Easier from the financial standpoint, much, much harder from the political standpoint.
Political standpoint was more difficult to begin with.

To put things in perspective, in 1954 China, Japan and South Korea were all backwaters (with Japan a rising star), whereas much of the heavy industry was located in Europe and US. There was no significant intercontinental travel, definitely no information highway, pollution was only being recognized as an issue, global cooling was soon to become an environmental concern.

There is no reason to expect the next 60 years to be significantly less turbulent both politically and technologically. Committing to a major 60-year effort is politically unfeasible and possibly strategically unsound.

McHrozni

 

[mike3]

Easier from the financial standpoint, much, much harder from the political standpoint.
Political standpoint was more difficult to begin with.

To put things in perspective, in 1954 China, Japan and South Korea were all backwaters (with Japan a rising star), whereas much of the heavy industry was located in Europe and US. There was no significant intercontinental travel, definitely no information highway, pollution was only being recognized as an issue, global cooling was soon to become an environmental concern.

There is no reason to expect the next 60 years to be significantly less turbulent both politically and technologically. Committing to a major 60-year effort is politically unfeasible and possibly strategically unsound.

McHrozni

So would you say that due to our political crap, we're sunk?

 

[macdoc]

Democracies are notoriously short sighted and common weal seems a lost phrase in the political vernacular.

If we had to build something like the St Lawrence Seaway now instaed of 60 years ago - it would not get built.

China shows what transformation CAN ne done in a short 30 years with a long view ruling party composed primarily of scientists and enigineers and without political interference.

I guess one has weigh the value of personal freedom and democracy against a habitable planet.

Still places like Sweden which are fast headed to carbon neutral within 30 years

Renewable energy[edit]
The share of renewable energy in Sweden was 50 % in 2005 and 60 % in 2012.[6] In 2013 renewable energy investment was more than US$1 billion in Sweden. [7] The share of renewable energy in per cent in Sweden was 48 % in 2012 and 38 % in 2000. The share of renewable energy 5 years average 2006-2010 was 45,6 % and 10 years average 2001-2010 was 42,7 %. The share of renewable energy in Sweden:[8]

1990 33 % 1995 36 % 2000 38 % 2005 41 % 2010 48 %

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Sweden

show it can done in a democracy and even EU is lumbering faster towards sustainable that politically handcuffed Australia, Canada and the US.

Emerging nations may skip over some of the fossil fueled steps to development...but China and India even with the best of intentions have severe issues in limiting fossil fuel use.

Yet China intends to meet peak coal use by 2016 and a rather rapid decline after that - much to Australia's dismay.

Brasil which is certainly an emerging powerhouse has a very strong carbon neutral base from ethanol and hydro power tho it's impact on land use is regrettable.

Once democracies DO get into gear ( ala WWII ) - then the acceleration of change can be astonishing when it is populous driven.
The US is showing signs of that albeit within great fossil funded opposition.

Nuclear tho remains burdened by fear mongering and very long time frames and high costs initially.

 

[Belz...]

Should I not have done that?

Comparing a scam artist to one of the greatest aerospace companies in history ?

 

[macdoc]

one of the greatest aerospace companies in history ?

with a history of brilliant break throughs as well.....
The Skunk Works remain legendary for good reason.....sometimes the future arises there.....

This still futuristic craft....

flew in 1964!!!!! and retains even now the speed record for air breathing aircraft ( AFAIK .....there might be a secret aircraft ....lots of rumours of Mach 8 )

Who knows what lurks in the Skunkworks now.....I was simply astounded that Lockheed went so public with this.

 

[xtifr]

Who knows what lurks in the Skunkworks now.....I was simply astounded that Lockheed went so public with this.

Of course, it might be that they went public with this because their Skunkworks really aren't producing a lot since Cold War financing went away, and they wanted some good publicity.

(Not saying that's the case—just pointing out that it's a possibility. "Did brilliant work in the 1960s" does not necessarily imply "does brilliant work today". Bell Labs and Xerox PARC used to do amazing work too, but are nothing but distant memories now.)

 

[McHrozni]

So would you say that due to our political crap, we're sunk?

Yeah, pretty much. Although it's not all crap, it's a reasonable concern: the strategy is far reaching, expensive, and not likely to repay itself within a century. How many predictions from 1914 about 2014 (or there about) were correct? Was it possible to determine that with any significant accuracy? Probably not. You need to adapt to the changing situation. Suppose you start building 5 nuclear plants per year, and after ten years they're all rendered obsolete because you've discovered for example efficient in vitro methane photosynthesis. The money for all that nuclear power could reasonably be spent better on a whole range of other things, including funding for such research.
Of course, it could be such technology won't be developed, which is why I think nuclear power is still our best bet for the time being.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Democracies are notoriously short sighted and common weal seems a lost phrase in the political vernacular.

Sometimes some are, yes. As you pointed out, it's not a general issue for all democracies, all the time.

China shows what transformation CAN ne done in a short 30 years with a long view ruling party composed primarily of scientists and enigineers and without political interference.

China made a transformation from a rural basket case to the world's largest polluter in 30 years. They didn't make a transformation towards green power yet. They're making progress on that front, much as everyone else.

Another thing, they made the first transformation using imported (and stolen) technology. This is an order of magnitude easier than it is to develop new technology, determine which options are best before they were extensively used, and stick with them, which is what the shift away from fossil power will require.

Can it be done in 30 years? Sure it can ... if you have all the know-how you need when you begin the transformation and only need to implement it.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Comparing a scam artist to one of the greatest aerospace companies in history ?

But many great companies have criminal pasts. Or presents. They are rarely punished, but only because they are powerful, not because they are clean. Corporate moral standards are notoriously poor, like moral standards of royalty in the days of absolute monarchies. Here is Lockheed.

The Lockheed bribery scandals encompassed a series of bribes and contributions made by officials of U.S. aerospace company Lockheed from the late 1950s to the 1970s in the process of negotiating the sale of aircraft.

The scandal caused considerable political controversy in West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Japan. In the U.S. the scandal nearly led to the corporation's downfall, as it was already struggling due to the commercial failure of the L-1011 TriStar airliner.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

 

[McHrozni]

But many great companies have criminal pasts. Or presents. They are rarely punished, but only because they are powerful, not because they are clean. Corporate moral standards are notoriously poor, like moral standards of royalty in the days of absolute monarchies. Here is Lockheed. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

It's a bit of a leap to go from bribing someone to buy your product to committing wholesale fraud by claiming you developed the Holy Grail of energy production when in fact you have nothing of the sort.
Lockheed has other businesses it stands to loose if it were defrauding investors in this way. Big, juicy business by providing the principal fighter for most of NATO.

I think it's unlikely this is a fraud. A hoax to catch spies, maybe, a red herring to hide a different project perhaps. I hope it's a real thing, but there is little to support it and it sounds too good to be true - meaning it probably is.

McHrozni

 

[Belz...]

But many great companies have criminal pasts. Or presents.

That is NOT what I was refering to. The comparison was about a scam artist with no product, vs a company with a long history of awesome products. I am simply pointing out that the comparison is shaky at best.

 

[Craig B]

That is NOT what I was refering to. The comparison was about a scam artist with no product, vs a company with a long history of awesome products. I am simply pointing out that the comparison is shaky at best.

From that point of view I agree, though there have been so many crazy statements on the topic of imminent practical nuclear fusion, that one takes a jaundiced view of any and all such claims.