'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution

[twilyth]

what shintai said, just to add the actual uran production/consumption numbers:

as of 2007:

• 41.279 tons world wide production
• 64,615 tons required

most of the gap is filed by the scraping of nuclear warheads but they are limited.

new mines are comming online, but they cant keep up with the rising demand, now that everyone wants to build powerplants.

And even with the new reactor typs you have nuclear waste that has to be dealt with, as shintai mentioned.

True, but the point is that a fuel rod is considered depleted when only a portion of it's U235 has been split. If you reprocess, you get new fuel for the cost of reprocessing. Plus, less than 1% of uranium mined is U235 - what's used in normal reactors. The rest is U238 which can be transmuted into Plutonium 239 in a breeder reactor - and we have so much U238, we use it as artillery shells - that's what they're talking about when they say 'depleted uranium.'

The problem with plutonium is that it is very toxic - chemically as well as from radioactivity. By comparison, enriched uranium is relatively safe - in the sense that you can handle it without dying immediately. However we've been using plutonium 239 for decades in weapons so it is possible for it to be handled safely.

Reprocessing eliminates some of the waste storage issue, but yes, there is definitely a lot of stuff that has to be disposed of. However it won't necessarily have to be stored for 10's of thousands of years unless you think that our technology will never advance. Transmutation of elements into other elements is scientific fact, not fiction. You can't argue that in 10 or 50 or 100 years we won't have the ability to go back and transmute radioactive waste easily and cheaply. We still don't have a good understanding of what is going on in quantum mechanics. If you doubt that, then explain how something can exist as both a particle and a wave simultaneously - because that what quantum mechanics requires you to believe. We just accept this as fact and move on, but it doesn't make any sense in human terms. Even Einstein labeled quantum 'teleportation' as 'spooky action at a distance.' And as for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, he said that he refused to believe that god played dice with the universe.

Personally I would rather see wind and solar be used over nuclear, but I'm not going to make the argument that nuclear can't be done either because it's too dangerous or we don't have enough fuel, because that just isn't correct.

[Shintai]

Or that you pay some 60cents per KW/h like me

[Shintai]

Transmutation of elements into other elements is scientific fact, not fiction. You can't argue that in 10 or 50 or 100 years we won't have the ability to go back and transmute radioactive waste easily and cheaply.

Here is a basic scientific issue with that idea. To transmute something so to say, guess how much energy you need. You need alot more than you got from your fission process. hence its not a viable solution. Unless you put your money on future technology to compensate for current waste.

If the world applied civic economics global warming and renewable energy wouldnt be a problem. We already today have all technologies. Even 10-20 years ago. But greed and stupidity is preventing it.

or in short. Instant gratification. Its like having to choose between a candy bar now. Or 10 candy bars in 1 years. And you choose the 1 candy bar now.

[twilyth]

Here is a basic scientific issue with that idea. To transmute something so to say, guess how much energy you need. You need alot more than you got from your fission process. hence its not a viable solution. Unless you put your money on future technology to compensate for current waste.

Exactly. The main issue would still be safe storage though since one can't predict when this might be cost effective. Disposal is definitely a problem. I won't argue otherwise. However is it enough of a problem to ignore nuclear as a possible alternative? In France the answer seems to be no. Political mileage in other countries will vary.

[sonofahb]

Here is a basic scientific issue with that idea. To transmute something so to say, guess how much energy you need. You need alot more than you got from your fission process. hence its not a viable solution. Unless you put your money on future technology to compensate for current waste.

If the world applied civic economics global warming and renewable energy wouldnt be a problem. We already today have all technologies. Even 10-20 years ago. But greed and stupidity is preventing it.

or in short. Instant gratification. Its like having to choose between a candy bar now. Or 10 candy bars in 1 years. And you choose the 1 candy bar now.

i think you sit in front of the computer too much over there in denmark. Tell me what all these technologies are. Look if there was a viable solution today that didnt have any problems with it, believe me everybody would be doing it. Just because you think in your mind that renewable energy is viable option doesnt mean it is. Technology isnt there yet. And dont say nuclear because guess what mines all that ore out of the ground....... fossil fuels. Wind is good only if its windy. Solar is good only if its sunny and isnt night and just to mention the fact that solar panels take more energy to manufacture than they will produce in there lifetime. Bio is good but has along way to go still.

The world uses ~87,000,000 bbd of oil. Nuclear,wind,solar isnt going to put a dent into that since we get alot of products from oil not just energy. All of your suggestions only generates electricity. The world isnt running out of coal.

[Hornet331]

i
The world uses ~87,000,000 bbd of oil. Nuclear,wind,solar isnt going to put a dent into that since we get alot of products from oil not just energy. All of your suggestions only generates electricity. The world isnt running out of coal.

most of the oil is used for transport, heating and electricity generation, if irc these tree combined account for 85-90% of the whole consumption.

If we yould produce our electricity without the use of oil/coal/gas we would have eliminated 1/3 of the oil usage.

[Movieman]

i think you sit in front of the computer too much over there in denmark. Tell me what all these technologies are. Look if there was a viable solution today that didnt have any problems with it, believe me everybody would be doing it. Just because you think in your mind that renewable energy is viable option doesnt mean it is. Technology isnt there yet. And dont say nuclear because guess what mines all that ore out of the ground....... fossil fuels. Wind is good only if its windy. Solar is good only if its sunny and isnt night and just to mention the fact that solar panels take more energy to manufacture than they will produce in there lifetime. Bio is good but has along way to go still.

The world uses ~87,000,000 bbd of oil. Nuclear,wind,solar isnt going to put a dent into that since we get alot of products from oil not just energy. All of your suggestions only generates electricity. The world isnt running out of coal.

Can I answer this since I'm not from Denmark?
Lets just say that much of what you say is 100% correct for the sake of argument..
Lets assume that all the "green" forms of energy production won't solve the problem but maybe do only 50% of it.
Isn't it still worth the trying to reduce the oil consumpsion by that number?
I think so. There's more I want to say but it's 5:26am here and my eyes are closing.. Good night to all.

[Shintai]

Solar is good only if its sunny and isnt night and just to mention the fact that solar panels take more energy to manufacture than they will produce in there lifetime.

Who told you that garbage? Exxon? I can just see a whole city goign backout when the local solar factory makes a days production of panels.

Also you do know solar cells also works when its clouded?

[The0men]

Can I answer this since I'm not from Denmark?
Lets just say that much of what you say is 100% correct for the sake of argument..
Lets assume that all the "green" forms of energy production won't solve the problem but maybe do only 50% of it.
Isn't it still worth the trying to reduce the oil consumpsion by that number?
I think so. There's more I want to say but it's 5:26am here and my eyes are closing.. Good night to all.

Exactly, it is worth a point. And even though it's not so good in terms of economics at the moment, as oil and coal diminish's and oil prices are growing,
we will see its not such a bad idea.

I love this thread. So many great opinions, if only a goverment or two
would listen to the intellence of communities such as XS and not
some of the dopey apes in parliment.

Australia would be perfect to implement alernative energy,
and I would be all for every house to have manditory solar panal,
and manditory water tank (as we are short of water now, even though I have no mains, only tanks and we have more water than ever, because we are good at saving it, and have never lived with mains)

But aus is a huge place with a low population, with have masses of desert,
we have loads of wind, lots wave torn coasts, theres no reason more of these
cant be made into energy.

Instead our moronic government wants to make desalination plants and more nuclear plants.

[Hornet331]

Also you do know solar cells also works when its clouded?

keyword: "diffuse sky radiation"

[Frank M]

I'm abit confused though, electrolyse has been known for ages and I can't really grasp the MAJOR change this time around, maybe a native englisch speaking person can explain what I am missing from the article?

Exactly, we've done these at school chemistry classes...

Lastly, the price for nuclear pwoer will go up rapidly. We got plenty of Uranium. But its abit like oil. Supply and demand plus harder and harder time mining it.

1. There's plenty of uranium ore that isn't mined now because there are
cheaper places to mine at. If it gets more expensive, then these sub-
marginal stocks will become viable, too.
2. Unlike oil, spent uranium fuel can be reprocessed in breeders. It
produces less (in both meanings: quality and quantity) radioactive waste
than traditional plants.
3. Instead of uranium, thorium can be used, too, in breeders, which is
cheap and abundant.
Why aren't these used more? Well, unfortunately, their side product is
pure plutonium, and that poses a political and nuclear proliferation threat.
But at least that would solve the overpopulation problem - I'm reserving
my Vault ticket right now

Yes and Germany didn't have to build another nuclear reactor due to the amount of solar panels used in their country. But hey lets poison the Earth right? Go play your banjo

Yep, thanks to the German Green party, instead of the nuclear power
plants, there are more coal power plants dumping a lot of CO2 (and SO2,
debris, etc) into the atmosphere
I don't understand why some dark greens hate nuclear so much; and
those I asked couldn't give any valid reasons either. If it's built well and
the waste is disposed of according to regulations, it's by far the cleanest
large-scale energy source we have. then they always come with the
extreme examples to prove that "nueks r bad"

[Shintai]

I dont think anyone says nuclear aint better than coal. But nuclear is abit like hybrid cars. A useless step on the road to the real thing. Why not just do it right from the start instead?

[Hornet331]

Yep, thanks to the German Green party, instead of the nuclear power
plants, there are more coal power plants dumping a lot of CO2 (and SO2,
debris, etc) into the atmosphere

SO2, NOx and dust is no problem in with current generation caloric power plants, heck i would rather life in the exhaust-gas plume of a new moderen coal power plant then in a region where people heat with wood/pellets etc. Compared to a new powerplant those domestic fuels spew huge quantities of pollutents into the air. Especial SO2 and PM10/5.

[Movieman]

My issue with nuclear has to do with the reality of having just one accident.
I'm not talking about those "baby" accidents like they had at Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island, as devastating as they were, but a full blown meltdown.
JUST one..The thought scares the crap out of me and please don't say it can't happen. It can and because it can it is too risky to use.
Solar,wind,hydro and geo thermal combined can solve the problem safely and without using the planets resources in any way.
Save the oil for the heavy lubricants where it is and will be needed.
Yea, I know, crude is only partially good for heavy lubricants but the point is still valid.

[Hornet331]

oil should be saved for the pharmaceutical industry

[twilyth]

My issue with nuclear has to do with the reality of having just one accident.
I'm not talking about those "baby" accidents like they had at Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island, as devastating as they were, but a full blown meltdown.
JUST one..The thought scares the crap out of me and please don't say it can't happen. It can and because it can it is too risky to use.
Solar,wind,hydro and geo thermal combined can solve the problem safely and without using the planets resources in any way.
Save the oil for the heavy lubricants where it is and will be needed.
Yea, I know, crude is only partially good for heavy lubricants but the point is still valid.

Dave, please take a look at this - pebble bed reactors

These are gas cooled and CANNOT melt down. You're thinking of the ancient designs used in current reactors where you have fuel rods and control rods and a very complex liquid cooling system that can malfunction if not maintained properly. The only issue with pebble beds is if you have a damaged pebbles - but that will cause a minor release of radiation at most. It will not and cannot cause a melt down.

Building a water cooled reactor when you could build one of these instead is just stupid. If someone wanted to build a pebble bed reactor in my area, I wouldn't object. If they tried to build a water cooled, control rod style reactor, I would be out there chaining myself to bulldozers.

[Movieman]

My feelings on solar are so strong that I've contacted the solar industry's lobbing group offering my home as a testbed to prove that even in a not "ideal" climate such as New England that it is workable on the "average" single family home and my house is surely that..
2200 sq ft,26x48' split level..Not a dump but nothing special either..

[Shintai]

Even in the very north Denmark solar works fine.



That little spot alone makes 4GW/h a year since 1996. This is abit different tho since it only makes warm water for central heating and such.

But an example is. 3-4square meter solar cells could keep my home filled with electricity in the 3 most shiny months here in denmark. 8 square meters for 8 months, with a large surplus production in summer.

[Movieman]

Even in the very north Denmark solar works fine.

Thanks for posting that. There is a lot of misinformation tossed out by those that for their own reasons don't want solar to go widespread..

[twilyth]

With thin film solar panels, you will, in theory, be able to paste them to every exterior surface on your house. With that kind of square footage, the only issue is energy storage and even that isn't a problem if you can feed the power into the grid. At $1/watt, THAT will be the revolution in solar power and those panels are being manufactured TODAY. As soon as Nanosolar can ramp up capacity, you'll being seeing these everywhere as DIY kits.

[twilyth]

Thanks for posting that. There is a lot of misinformation tossed out by those that for their own reasons don't want solar to go widespread..

What reasons would someone have for not wanting solar? Personally I'm not in the pocket of big oil. Of course if they wanted to pay me big bucks to be their shill I probably wouldn't say no, but alas, I've never been made an offer.

[Movieman]

Dave, please take a look at this - pebble bed reactors

These are gas cooled and CANNOT melt down. You're thinking of the ancient designs used in current reactors where you have fuel rods and control rods and a very complex liquid cooling system that can malfunction if not maintained properly. The only issue with pebble beds is if you have a damaged pebbles - but that will cause a minor release of radiation at most. It will not and cannot cause a melt down.

Building a water cooled reactor when you could build one of these instead is just stupid. If someone wanted to build a pebble bed reactor in my area, I wouldn't object. If they tried to build a water cooled, control rod style reactor, I would be out there chaining myself to bulldozers.

The only thing I saw on that link was a refereence to graphite..
Do you know what kind of reactor was at Chernobyl?
Yup, Graphite..
It has an amazing abilty to absorb heat but once" overloaded" it flashes back that heat.
I read an interesting article in National Geographic a few years back doing a timeline of what happenned at Chernobyl.
It was broken down into the millionth's of a second.
At one point they said the inside of that reactor was app 1/10th of the temp of the surface of the sun when it flashed that stored heat back.
It scares me that people would go with a potentially catastrophic technology when there are such safe ones available.
The logic just isn't there so it must be driven by the pursuit of money.
There is just no other logical answer..
Here's a simple way to look at it:
Would you rather have a Nuclear plant as your next door neighbor or a farm of solar panels?

[[XC] riptide]

My feelings on solar are so strong that I've contacted the solar industry's lobbing group offering my home as a testbed to prove that even in a not "ideal" climate such as New England that it is workable on the "average" single family home and my house is surely that..
2200 sq ft,26x48' split level..Not a dump but nothing special either..

Nice house Dave... you just have to tell the lobbying group how many 8core monsters you run 24/7

[twilyth]

The only thing I saw on that link was a refereence to graphite..
Do you know what kind of reactor was at Chernobyl?
Yup, Graphite..
It has an amazing abilty to absorb heat but once" overloaded" it flashes back that heat.
I read an interesting article in National Geographic a few years back doing a timeline of what happenned at Chernobyl.
It was broken down into the millionth's of a second.
At one point they said the inside of that reactor was app 1/10th of the temp of the surface of the sun when it flashed that stored heat back.
It scares me that people would go with a potentially catastrophic technology when there are such safe ones available.
The logic just isn't there so it must be driven by the pursuit of money.
There is just no other logical answer..
Here's a simple way to look at it:
Would you rather have a Nuclear plant as your next door neighbor or a farm of solar panels?

Sorry dude, wrong link - must still have been on the clipboard manager from last night. Here it is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

The 'pebbles' are wrapped in multiple layers of materials including graphite. As a result, each one is a self-contained reaction vessel. These reactors run at lower temperatures and therefore aren't as efficient but they are also much safer. As long as the pebbles stay in tact, the nuclear reaction will be controlled. But even if a few are damaged, you will still not get a runaway reaction. Even nuke opponents won't contest this fact.

[Movieman]

What reasons would someone have for not wanting solar? Personally I'm not in the pocket of big oil. Of course if they wanted to pay me big bucks to be their shill I probably wouldn't say no, but alas, I've never been made an offer.

I know your not shilling for them and that your motives are good but there are people out there that do this for a living to protect "their" interests.

Nice house Dave... you just have to tell the lobbying group how many 8core monsters you run 24/7

SHH, We don't tell them that.
I saw your comment on 1800w constant..
Mine is pretty close to that..app 1700-1750w
You need some "sammy's"