Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Our 95% nuclear/thermonuclear future
Even if we could produce 50% of today's world energy needs with renewables (sun, wind, water power) -- IOW even if we could produce as much renewable power as we are ever likely to produce -- that would only amount to 5% of the power the world will need 100 years from now when we will need 10X as much (think all rich countries, population growth).
A 95% nuclear future is the only way to go -- adding on thermonuclear when we get there. Thermonuclear will be a along time -- similar to applying steam power to transport and manufacturing. It took a lot of very able people 200 years to bring steam along from pumping water out of coal mines to riding on rails. May take 50 years for equivalent progress in thermo.
Meantime there may realistically be 1000 times the proven reserves of uranium out there. Doesn't take much -- a pound of nuclear fuel provides as much power as 200,000 pounds of coal. Ditto may even be extracted from the oceans (like thermo's deuterium).
The Japanese reactor disaster was easily avoided. They only had to to keep their backup power supply high up enough to not be swamped by a tsunami -- which they were warned could happen. Nobody died on Three Mile Island. The Russian meltdown doesn't count for us. Earth civilization is going to self-incinerate if we don't go nuclear -- totally.
Disposing of spent fuel: how many coal mines or salt mines, etc., have we dug while waiting to dig a few uranium sites?
That's the physics of it -- can't imagine how we will handle the politics and economics of it -- 95% nuclear/thermonuclear or bust.
The book you want to read (I could only read about half -- too technical in parts) is: The Future of Fusion Energy by Jason Parisi and Justine Ball.
https://www.amazon.com/Future-Fusion-Energy-Popular-Science-ebook/dp/B07MYTCRNS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Future+of+Fusion+Energy&qid=1564161981&s=books&sr=1-1
For the histoy of steam among other power sources, check out: Energy: A Human History by Richard Rhodes (Pulitzer Prize winning author of Th Making of the Atomic Bomb).
https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Human-History-Richard-Rhodes/dp/1501105353/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Energy%3A+A+Human+History&qid=1564162033&s=books&sr=1-2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I once figured that even if we could reach 50% renewables today, that 100 years from now when we need 10 times as much power (all rich countries, population growth), that 50% would only amount to 5% of what we need then. This seemed to me that from the purely physics standpoint, nuclear was the only way to go — all nuclear.
Good luck making the whole world go all nuclear in a hurry.
Have just read Alexander Sammon’s, December 5, 2019 article in the American Prospect:
The Tantalizing Nuclear Mirage —
Many see nuclear power as a necessary part of any carbon-neutral mix. The reality isn’t so simple.
https://prospect.org/greennewdeal/the-tantalizing-nuclear-mirage/
Seems nuclear is more likely to shrink than grow because of the massive water needs.
Does that leave the only hope for civilization a quick development of THERMONUCLEAR technology. Can an all-out, WWII Manhattan Project to develop thermonuclear be the only hope for the planet?
The book to read (I could only read about half — too technical in parts) is: The Future of Fusion Energy by Jason Parisi and Justine Ball.
https://www.amazon.com/Future-Fusion-Energy-Popular-Science-ebook/dp/B07MYTCRNS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Future+of+Fusion+Energy&qid=1564161981&s=books&sr=1-1
Seems the way to thermonuclear is pretty fully marked out ( it took the best brains on the planet to go from steam pumps pushing water out of mines to transportation and manufacturing) — but there is so much work to do on so many angles that it might take 50 years.
Good luck!
Post a Comment