# CO2 to Fuel



## begreen (Dec 8, 2018)

Happening to the north of us in Squamish, BC.
http://carbonengineering.com/about-a2f/
https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2018/11/29/from-hot-air-to-action


----------



## lsucet (Dec 8, 2018)

That's interesting for sure. It will be a good alternative.


----------



## wooduser (Dec 10, 2018)

It's a way of using massive amounts of electrical energy to produce a liquid fuel at VERY high cost.

Why bother when we can pump liquid fuels out of the ground,  refine them at low cost and have a relatively cheap fuel?

It's an absurd proposition unless you want to price most people out of airplane car and ocean travel  -----which is,  of course the aim and heartfelt desire of many environmentalists.


No word about that in the video,  of course.


----------



## bholler (Dec 10, 2018)

wooduser said:


> It's a way of using massive amounts of electrical energy to produce a liquid fuel at VERY high cost.
> 
> Why bother when we can pump liquid fuels out of the ground,  refine them at low cost and have a relatively cheap fuel?
> 
> ...


No of course it isn't a viable solution right now.  But neither were lots of other things we use daily now when they started.  But if we wait till oil and gas become scarce where will we be?  We need to be developing alternatives now.


----------



## wooduser (Dec 10, 2018)

bholler said:


> No of course it isn't a viable solution right now. But neither were lots of other things we use daily now when they started. But if we wait till oil and gas become scarce where will we be? We need to be developing alternatives now.




We've been running out of oil for 160 years,  and the world has been massively increasing consumption at the same time we've been runing out.  Result?  We have more supplies than ever and a glut of the stuff.

This doesn't produce ANY energy.  All it does is convert electricity into a liquid fuel way too expensive for anyone to use.

Frankly,  we have lots of more important stuff to worry about than this kind of pipe dream.  

Ridiculous.


----------



## bholler (Dec 10, 2018)

wooduser said:


> We've been running out of oil for 160 years,  and the world has been massively increasing consumption at the same time we've been runing out.  Result?  We have more supplies than ever and a glut of the stuff.
> 
> This doesn't produce ANY energy.  All it does is convert electricity into a liquid fuel way too expensive for anyone to use.
> 
> ...


Yes and eventually we will run out of oil that is economically viable to get.  When that does happen it would be much better if we already had alternatives in place.  Like I said at this point this is far from a viable option.  But if there is a cheap clean option for electrical generation developed maybe it would be.  

Yes we do have more pressing issues to deal with.  But I don't understand why so many want to wait till there is an energy crisis before working on it.


----------



## spirilis (Dec 10, 2018)

For those of us actually concerned with anthropogenic (largely from CO2 emission) climate change, the value here is being able to produce fuels compatible with current equipment WITHOUT digging more carbon out of the ground, the source of the problem we're trying to solve.  This is one of those breakthroughs that needs intense development right now (to bring the price down).  The potential to produce hydrocarbon fuels that recycle atmospheric CO2 become a proxy method of powering the current world with clean electricity.

Note this also requires hydrogen as input, which is largely derived from natural gas these days.  There's plenty of work being done on that too, including- https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2...n-hydrogen-with-generation-iv-nuclear-energy/


----------



## Dataman (Dec 10, 2018)

We will never run out of Hydrocarbons.  In the future the 1st shipment from Titan will happen.  Will be demonstrations about spoiling the bio of Titan.  Lots of methane and ethane


----------



## bholler (Dec 10, 2018)

Dataman said:


> We will never run out of Hydrocarbons.  In the future the 1st shipment from Titan will happen.  Will be demonstrations about spoiling the bio of Titan.  Lots of methane and ethane


Are you serious?


----------



## peakbagger (Dec 10, 2018)

He must be a fan of "The Expanse"


----------



## Dataman (Dec 10, 2018)

Lots of things besides fuel made out of Hydrocarbons.


----------



## bholler (Dec 10, 2018)

Dataman said:


> Lots of things besides fuel made out of Hydrocarbons.


Yes absolutley.  I was just questioning if you seriously think bringing fuel from Saturn's moon is a more viable option than developing alternatives here.


----------



## Dataman (Dec 10, 2018)

Sure if we don't go back to the Stone Age.   Who knows where we will be in say 200 years.  Or even 50.


----------



## begreen (Dec 10, 2018)

wooduser said:


> Why bother when we can pump liquid fuels out of the ground, refine them at low cost and have a relatively cheap fuel?


That completely ignores the cost of these practices. We've been doing it for a couple centuries and the toll on the planet is devastating. It's so serious that we are approaching an end game here.


----------



## begreen (Dec 10, 2018)

Dataman said:


> We will never run out of Hydrocarbons.


Probably true because we have no choice but to wean ourselves off of a carbon based energy cycle to more sustainable systems.


----------



## bholler (Dec 10, 2018)

Dataman said:


> Sure if we don't go back to the Stone Age.   Who knows where we will be in say 200 years.  Or even 50.


Why not put our efforts into alternatives here instead of bringing hydrocarbons from another celestial body to pump into our atmosphere.


----------



## begreen (Dec 10, 2018)

bholler said:


> Why not put our efforts into alternatives here instead of bringing hydrocarbons from another celestial body to pump into our atmosphere.


That really is the only alternative. In order to be sustainable we need to change from global linear economies to circular economies. And it looks like investors are starting to demand this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ll-for-action-on-climate-change-idUSKBN1O80TR


----------



## wooduser (Dec 10, 2018)

Humanity continues to get 80% of our energy from hydrocarbons,  and that isn't changing,  fads and fashions of western environmentalists notwithstanding.

Perhaps you didn't notice,  but that video didn't even give an ESTIMATE for the cost/gallon of the liquid fuel they want to subsidize for gasoline or jet engine fuel.

WHY do you suppose they left out that detail?

And that would be using mostly cheap hydroelectric power from British Columbia.  If they were serious about using unreliable,  very expensive "renewable"  electricity to produce their bogus fuel,  the cost would be even more stratospheric.

How much would a seat on a jet airliner flying to Europe cost if the plane used that fuel?  $3,000,   $5,000?  $10,000?  The sky,  so to speak,  is the limit.

Seattle Pioneer


----------



## begreen (Dec 10, 2018)

If the true costs of fossil fuels were actualized gas would cost a magnitude more. As we approach the endgame this becomes all too apparent. Past habits are not sustainable, they belong back in the pioneer days. When you're stuck in a hole and trying to get out you don't keep trying to dig it deeper.


----------



## bholler (Dec 10, 2018)

wooduser said:


> Humanity continues to get 80% of our energy from hydrocarbons,  and that isn't changing,  fads and fashions of western environmentalists notwithstanding.
> 
> Perhaps you didn't notice,  but that video didn't even give an ESTIMATE for the cost/gallon of the liquid fuel they want to subsidize for gasoline or jet engine fuel.
> 
> ...


So because that is how it has been done for the past 100 years or so we should bother to look for different possibly better solutions??? Where do you think we would be if everyone had that mentality?  We certainly wouldnt have an internet to discuss this on.  We wouldnt have cars to drive etc etc.  

Fine you dont like this particular solution.  It may never result in a viable fuel but we will never know if we dont look into it.  And personally i would rather the us be on the cutting edge so we can benifit from the rewards instead of simply following others.  Things will change no matter what you want.


----------



## begreen (Dec 10, 2018)

Being on the cutting edge sounds a lot like the definition of being a pioneer.

Pioneer _verb_

_To develop or be the first to use or apply (a new method, area of knowledge, or activity)._


----------



## spirilis (Dec 10, 2018)

Put it a different way...

The academics studying the economics of climate change (JesseJenkins on twitter has been my main source/feedpoint of info on this) seem to agree that most efficient way to curb emissions and mitigate climate change is to enact a Carbon Tax.  Price the externalities of carbon emissions directly into the fuels.  This makes ground-carbon-emitting sources of energy immediately painful to use and "clean" alternatives sought with intense rigor and opens up tons of investment money due to the obvious market for them.

This necessarily entails adding a significant tax, several $$ per gallon, to all fuels derived from the ground based on their CO2 emissions.  I'm not sure if you would call this a "regressive" tax because generally speaking rich folks are responsible for the most CO2 per-capita, but it hurts poor and rich folks alike.  A devil in the details is where does the Carbon Tax go, how is it redistributed and to whom.  The riots in Paris right now are happening in part due to an attempt by Macron's administration to enact such a tax.

Should technology like this CO2-capture hydrocarbon fuel become commercially viable and developed to the point of it becoming affordable, it may end up being the affordable option since this should not be subject to the Carbon Tax.

In the absence of such a politically suicidal Carbon Tax, the next-best thing is to offer subsidies to clean or carbon-neutral energy sources to promote them.  Woodstove change-outs might be considered a form of this, frankly, as are Electric Vehicle subsidies, charging station subsidies, etc.  It's understood this is a variably-effective method of mitigating climate change factors and is still inferior to straight-out pricing the cost of CO2 emissions into the sources directly.

But folks should keep a keen eye on the fact that this Carbon Tax is a looming option that you can count on politicians introducing repeatedly over the next few decades.


----------



## wooduser (Dec 10, 2018)

bholler said:


> Fine you dont like this particular solution. It may never result in a viable fuel but we will never know if we dont look into it. And personally i would rather the us be on the cutting edge so we can benifit from the rewards instead of simply following others. Things will change no matter what you want.




<<Fine you dont like this particular solution. It may never result in a viable fuel but we will never know if we dont look into it. And personally i would rather the us be on the cutting edge so we can benifit from the rewards instead of simply following others. Things will change no matter what you want.


Look at the economics.  You are using electricity to make a liquid fuel.  In short,  you are using a very expensive manufactured energy source to replace a fuel that is efficiently pumoped out of the ground at low cost and refined and transported at low cost.
'
Even more ridiculous,  our environmentalist friends   are just chomping at the bit to use their hallowed "renwable" energy from solar and wind to make electricity at vast cost and reliability issues,  and propose to use that very high priced energy to make another even higher priced energy.


It's absurd.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 10, 2018)

Some say environmentalist like a dirty word. Remember when rivers actually burst into flames? Love Canal, strip mining. Even if you don't believe in the greenhouse effect isn't the world nicer when you can breath the air and drink the water?

Environmentalist's, bunch a' book learned punks.


----------



## begreen (Dec 10, 2018)

wooduser said:


> <<Fine you dont like this particular solution. It may never result in a viable fuel but we will never know if we dont look into it. And personally i would rather the us be on the cutting edge so we can benifit from the rewards instead of simply following others. Things will change no matter what you want.
> 
> 
> Look at the economics.  You are using electricity to make a liquid fuel.  In short,  you are using a very expensive manufactured energy source to replace a fuel that is efficiently pumoped out of the ground at low cost and refined and transported at low cost.
> ...


Broad statements that ignore the fact that huge amounts of energy are used to harvest, store, refine, distribute and transport in-ground petroleum and even more for tar sands petroleum. And that is before the subsidies kick in that keep it affordable and totally ignoring the health costs. The linear model simply doesn't work. We can't keep extracting resources, using them and dumping the waste into the air, water and land. That one way model is not sustainable. $hit in your bed for long enough and it will become uninhabitable. 

The reason the natural systems on the planet work is that the create NO WASTE. This has allowed them to exist and evolve for millions of years. These are circular systems. We need to mimic nature for our own survival.


----------



## bholler (Dec 10, 2018)

wooduser said:


> <<Fine you dont like this particular solution. It may never result in a viable fuel but we will never know if we dont look into it. And personally i would rather the us be on the cutting edge so we can benifit from the rewards instead of simply following others. Things will change no matter what you want.
> 
> 
> Look at the economics.  You are using electricity to make a liquid fuel.  In short,  you are using a very expensive manufactured energy source to replace a fuel that is efficiently pumoped out of the ground at low cost and refined and transported at low cost.
> ...


So your solution is do nothing to move forward?


----------



## spirilis (Dec 11, 2018)

wooduser said:


> <<Fine you dont like this particular solution. It may never result in a viable fuel but we will never know if we dont look into it. And personally i would rather the us be on the cutting edge so we can benifit from the rewards instead of simply following others. Things will change no matter what you want.
> 
> 
> Look at the economics.  You are using electricity to make a liquid fuel.  In short,  you are using a very expensive manufactured energy source to replace a fuel that is efficiently pumoped out of the ground at low cost and refined and transported at low cost.
> ...


You are right IMO about the absurdity of using expensive renewable energy for this.  Nuclear is a better fit.


----------



## begreen (Dec 11, 2018)

spirilis said:


> You are right IMO about the absurdity of using expensive renewable energy for this.  Nuclear is a better fit.


In the short term I think you are correct, though it's a devil's bargain. In the meantime, more sobering news. 
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5


----------



## PaulOinMA (Dec 11, 2018)

If folk's haven't watched it, NOVA's "Uranium – Twisting the Dragon's Tail" from a couple of years ago is excellent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_–_Twisting_the_Dragon's_Tail


----------



## wooduser (Dec 11, 2018)

bholler said:


> So your solution is do nothing to move forward?





That was the solution of environmentalists who succeeded in getting the construction of several WPPS nuclear power plants being constructed stopped in Washington State in the late 1970s.  

More particularly,  they promoted the idea of intensively promoting conservation through upgrading weatherization of homes and busineses---- that actually worked quite well.


Unfortunately,  the new fashion for renewables came along and energy conservation has been abandoned in favor of buying unreliable and very expensive windmills.


----------



## wooduser (Dec 11, 2018)

jatoxico said:


> Some say environmentalist like a dirty word. Remember when rivers actually burst into flames? Love Canal, strip mining. Even if you don't believe in the greenhouse effect isn't the world nicer when you can breath the air and drink the water?





Some of what environmentalists did  ---- in the 1970sd and 1980s is fine.


But that has long since given way to very powerful special interest groups promoting extremist politics and an appetite for absurd bright ideas  ----like the one being promoted in the video.


----------



## bholler (Dec 11, 2018)

wooduser said:


> That was the solution of environmentalists who succeeded in getting the construction of several WPPS nuclear power plants being constructed stopped in Washington State in the late 1970s.
> 
> More particularly,  they promoted the idea of intensively promoting conservation through upgrading weatherization of homes and busineses---- that actually worked quite well.
> 
> ...


So again what is your solution?  I hear lots of criticism of all new ideas but no ideas othe4 than just keep doing what we are doing untill we can't anymore.  

And btw wind turbines have gotten much cheaper and more reliable.


----------



## bholler (Dec 11, 2018)

wooduser said:


> Some of what environmentalists did  ---- in the 1970sd and 1980s is fine.
> 
> 
> But that has long since given way to very powerful special interest groups promoting extremist politics and an appetite for absurd bright ideas  ----like the one being promoted in the video.


And you would have thought replacing .coal with oil was an absurd idea at that time as well. Or replacing horses with cars.  Most innovations seem absurd when they are firts thought of.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Dec 12, 2018)

This is the embryonic technology of future "atmospheric processors". It is the typical technological solution product "ahead of its time". It will allow me to continue my lifestyle but at ever increasing cost. It is where significant US govt supported research $ should be directed, until widespread "national need" lets private investment roll in to move it into development and manufacturing.

It is why I roll my eyes when I read some posters talking of "end days" re our climate problems. I see us presently entering the "skinned knees" stage of climate change. We'll continue to manage the effects for another generation or two, solving some problems along the way. We may need to adjust our coastal development, and the method will likely be through ever higher insurance premiums. I'm Ok with this as I do not see basic human nature changing profoundly. The electrification and automation of the transport industry will make a hugh impact, and moderate some of the dooms day predictions. The climate forecast problems will be resolved by technology, and just as we don't live like our grandparents, our grandchildren will live quite differently from our present ways. The big "problems" in their lives will likely have more to do with global overpopulation and mass migration.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Dec 12, 2018)

CAPTSPIFF said," We may need to adjust our coastal development, and the method will likely be through ever higher insurance premiums. I'm Ok with this as I do not see basic human nature changing profoundly."

with that in mind,G. Marconi built one of his three wireless stations several hundred feet on the bluffs of Eastham , Mass. In less than ten years the station was moved to Chatham due to erosion. the loss has continued to this day. the bases of the four towers built are now covered by the Atlantic Ocean!

Human nature changing? people on the coast will never change, the are buying uninsurable homes as we speak? Marconi built his stuff in like 1903?


----------



## PaulOinMA (Dec 13, 2018)

Doug MacIVER said:


> … people on the coast will never change, the are buying uninsurable homes as we speak …



Been going to the Outer Banks for 30 years.  Number of homes lost to the ocean in that time.  Not allowed to rebuild on your land in many towns, if the ocean takes your home.

There's a good NOVA on moving the Gay Head lighthouse in Martha's Vineyard: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/operation-lighthouse-rescue.  There's another show on it, too.

The Cape Hatteras, NC lighthouse had to be moved, too.


----------



## begreen (Dec 14, 2018)

wooduser said:


> That was the solution of environmentalists who succeeded in getting the construction of several WPPS nuclear power plants being constructed stopped in Washington State in the late 1970s.
> 
> More particularly,  they promoted the idea of intensively promoting conservation through upgrading weatherization of homes and busineses---- that actually worked quite well.
> 
> Unfortunately,  the new fashion for renewables came along and energy conservation has been abandoned in favor of buying unreliable and very expensive windmills.


Let's not rewrite history. It was bad modeling, bad assumptions, seriously flawed projections and bad economics that killed WPPSS. It is true that once people started realizing the phenomenal costs of this out of control fiasco that some smart people got out their calculators and proved that conservation was much more effective and cheaper than building a huge excess of power plants in a region already with an abundance of cheap hydro. Things like 3 Mile Island incident brought tougher regs which weren't planned for. And the financing based on a if we build it they will come dream was a disaster. Often, they were building ahead of the designers. WPPSS is a textbook classic boondoggle. 
https://www.context.org/iclib/ic07/myers/
http://www.historylink.org/File/5482


----------



## begreen (Dec 14, 2018)

CaptSpiff said:


> This is the embryonic technology of future "atmospheric processors". It is the typical technological solution product "ahead of its time". It will allow me to continue my lifestyle but at ever increasing cost. It is where significant US govt supported research $ should be directed, until widespread "national need" lets private investment roll in to move it into development and manufacturing.
> 
> It is why I roll my eyes when I read some posters talking of "end days" re our climate problems. I see us presently entering the "skinned knees" stage of climate change. We'll continue to manage the effects for another generation or two, solving some problems along the way. We may need to adjust our coastal development, and the method will likely be through ever higher insurance premiums. I'm Ok with this as I do not see basic human nature changing profoundly. The electrification and automation of the transport industry will make a hugh impact, and moderate some of the dooms day predictions. The climate forecast problems will be resolved by technology, and just as we don't live like our grandparents, our grandchildren will live quite differently from our present ways. The big "problems" in their lives will likely have more to do with global overpopulation and mass migration.



I certainly wish this were true, but unfortunately the scope and scale of global systems that have been put into motion don't stop or even slow down with the flip of technology. These are very large-scale, planetary systems at play and they are accelerating faster than models have predicted. We are in deep trouble because notable change is going to take huge investments in systemic change and that is not going to happen until the fossil fuel industry buys in. So far that is not happening in spite of this being the current largest contributor of methane, which is a more serious greenhouse gas than CO2. As the earth warms thawing permafrost may surpass this, but at that point the planet may be past the tipping point of no return. 
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2668/nasa-led-study-solves-a-methane-puzzle/

"Professor Myles Allen, a geosystem scientist at the University of Oxford, said describing the “limited realistic potential” of carbon removal was short-sighted, and allowed people to “cling to the comfort-blanket of more conventional mitigation options”."

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...d-climate-change-global-warming-a8187806.html


----------



## wooduser (Dec 14, 2018)

begreen said:


> Let's not rewrite history. It was bad modeling, bad assumptions, seriously flawed projections and bad economics that killed WPPSS.




Actually,  it was the field day environmentalists had with repeatedly rewriting standards that required demolition of  already constructed parts of nuclear plants to be rebuilt,  followed by repeating that again and again that has led to the demise of nuclear power.  The reality was that you could never put nuclear power plants into service when environmentalists controlled the regulatory process and were determined to prevent new nuclear plants from going on line by any of the numerous means at their disposal. 

Even completed nuclear plants were demolished without ever going on line. 

And of course just the reverse was done with "renewable" power.  First hydroelectric power was defined as not being "renewable"  because environmentalists didn't like it.

Then they created political demand for windmills regardless of their unreliability and high cost,  and abandoned their previous enthusiasm for conservation because now they wanted NEW power supplies based upon their own political desires.


Unfortunately,  too many people give knee jerk support to environmentalist politics,  and we are paying a VERY high price because of it.


----------



## bholler (Dec 14, 2018)

wooduser said:


> Actually,  it was the field day environmentalists had with repeatedly rewriting standards that required demolition of  already constructed parts of nuclear plants to be rebuilt,  followed by repeating that again and again that has led to the demise of nuclear power.  The reality was that you could never put nuclear power plants into service when environmentalists controlled the regulatory process and were determined to prevent new nuclear plants from going on line by any of the numerous means at their disposal.
> 
> Even completed nuclear plants were demolished without ever going on line.
> 
> ...


And the other side give knee jerk resistance to any change to benifit the environment.  

Since you seem to support nuclear power so much can you tell us what is being done with all of the spent rods? And why is it so many plants are closing because they are not economically viable in states like pa where electric subsidies have been cut?


----------



## spirilis (Dec 14, 2018)

bholler said:


> And the other side give knee jerk resistance to any change to benifit the environment.
> 
> Since you seem to support nuclear power so much can you tell us what is being done with all of the spent rods? And why is it so many plants are closing because they are not economically viable in states like pa where electric subsidies have been cut?


Spent rods live for 5 years in a water pool while the nastiest of radionuclides decay, then they are entombed in dry casks made of steel and concrete where they sit above ground.

I read a quote in a book where all of the world's civilian nuclear spent fuel for the past 60 years would fill a bit more than half of the the 1st floor of the empire state building.  So it's not really all that much either.
(To compare, the world's YEARLY production of coal ash would fill the empire state building over 300 times, although a significant percentage of that goes into making concrete and cinder blocks)


----------



## wooduser (Dec 14, 2018)

bholler said:


> Since you seem to support nuclear power so much can you tell us what is being done with all of the spent rods? And why is it so many plants are closing because they are not economically viable in states like pa where electric subsidies have been cut?




Of course environmentalists have torpedoed every plan to bury spent fuel rods underground  ---Obama doing the latest hatchet job on that.

You guys MUCH PREFER having fuel rods stored with their current level of security so that you have that as an issue against nuclear power.  You have been playing that card for decades,  and there is no sign of any change.


Shucks,  you guys use ANY issue you can conjure up to oppose anything you don;t happen to like.  You guys used Spotted owls which you don;t care about a fig to get control of forests ion Oregon and Washington State,  and you are currently working like BEAVERS to have four major hydroelectric dams on the Snake River in Washington State dug up,  despite the fact that they generate huge amounts of no carbon fuel.

Indeed,  environmentalists passed a state initiative in Washington State promoting renewable energy which EXCLUDED hydroelectric power as renewable energy!

You guys have already been busy digging u[p hydroelectric dams in the west,  and aim to do a lot more of that.  Indeed,  one of the barriers to more windmills in Washington State is all that already built hydropower  ----  get it dug up and you can argue for building more windmills.

Many of you guys are political extremists and a menace to society.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 14, 2018)

Well it took a little while but there you go.


----------



## bholler (Dec 14, 2018)

wooduser said:


> Of course environmentalists have torpedoed every plan to bury spent fuel rods underground  ---Obama doing the latest hatchet job on that.
> 
> You guys MUCH PREFER having fuel rods stored with their current level of security so that you have that as an issue against nuclear power.  You have been playing that card for decades,  and there is no sign of any change.
> 
> ...


So if we bury the rods they can't hurt anything?

And for the record I have never done anything concerning spotted owls or beavers.


----------



## spirilis (Dec 14, 2018)

bholler said:


> So if we bury the rods they can't hurt anything?
> 
> And for the record I have never done anything concerning spotted owls or beavers.


Depends on where they go but pretty much.  Local soil should not be oxidizing.

Personally I'd prefer we reprocess the stuff and extract the useful contents.  Only 3% or less of the stuff is actually nasty materials and there is still a goldmine of isotopes and rare materials in that portion.  The rest is mostly 238U, 235U and various isotopes of Pu (239Pu with a good bit of 240Pu that makes it useless for nuclear weapons)


----------



## SpaceBus (Dec 14, 2018)

bholler said:


> And you would have thought replacing .coal with oil was an absurd idea at that time as well. Or replacing horses with cars.  Most innovations seem absurd when they are firts thought of.



Indeed


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2018)

wooduser said:


> Actually,  it was the field day environmentalists had with repeatedly rewriting standards that required demolition of  already constructed parts of nuclear plants to be rebuilt,  followed by repeating that again and again that has led to the demise of nuclear power.  The reality was that you could never put nuclear power plants into service when environmentalists controlled the regulatory process and were determined to prevent new nuclear plants from going on line by any of the numerous means at their disposal.
> 
> Even completed nuclear plants were demolished without ever going on line.
> 
> ...


No, it was things like 3 mile island causing regulators to be more cautious. Environmentalist did not change engineering designs. That is just silly. Designs were changed to make the reactors safer and more foolproof to avoid another disaster. The input from conservationists came after things started going downhill. They suggested there was a better and more economical way, energy efficiency, which benefited everyone and had the lowest cost. But the real problem with WPPSS was that they ridiculously overestimated demand. This was then turned into an economic fiasco that promised investors full returns on their bonds regardless of whether the plants were built or not. 

PS: the windmills came a few decades later. I haven't heard power companies complaining about their costs. At least PSE is not complaining. Considering modern units make power at about 5 cents a KWh and sell it for 11 cents it seems to have the shareholders happy.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...urces-of-electricity-and-its-getting-cheaper/


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2018)

spirilis said:


> Personally I'd prefer we reprocess the stuff and extract the useful contents. Only 3% or less of the stuff is actually nasty materials and there is still a goldmine of isotopes and rare materials in that portion. The rest is mostly 238U, 235U and various isotopes of Pu (239Pu with a good bit of 240Pu that makes it useless for nuclear weapons)


Read up on the chronic, deteriorating problems of Hanford. We don't do a great job at this.


----------



## wooduser (Dec 15, 2018)

PaulOinMA said:


> Been going to the Outer Banks for 30 years. Number of homes lost to the ocean in that time. Not allowed to rebuild on your land in many towns, if the ocean takes your home.


Erosion of coastal s


begreen said:


> Read up on the chronic, deteriorating problems of Hanford. We don't do a great job at this.


Hanford produced plutonium for the military use of atomic weapons.  That has little to do with reprocessing fuel rods.


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2018)

wooduser said:


> Of course environmentalists have torpedoed every plan to bury spent fuel rods underground  ---Obama doing the latest hatchet job on that.
> 
> You guys MUCH PREFER having fuel rods stored with their current level of security so that you have that as an issue against nuclear power.  You have been playing that card for decades,  and there is no sign of any change.
> 
> ...


Dude, stop turning this into a You Guys vs Us Guys argument. That is actually part of the problem. We're all in this together and you might be surprised to note that some of "those guys" are actually not opposed to responsible application of nuclear energy in the short term.

You'll note that similar initiatives for renewable energy have been passed in at least 20 other states. That said, I'm personally not a big fan of the initiative process.


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2018)

wooduser said:


> Hanford produced plutonium for the military use of atomic weapons. That has little to do with reprocessing fuel rods.


Reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. At Hanford we have done a horrible job of this.


----------



## spirilis (Dec 15, 2018)

begreen said:


> Reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. At Hanford we have done a horrible job of this.


I've also read part of the problem at Hanford is we have solutions but nobody wants to implement them (as it would stop the funding train for the site if the job were "done")

https://atomicinsights.com/atomic-show-201-better-way-to-clean-up-hanford-tanks/

I would also suggest that it is disingenious to shoot down a possible tech based on the performance of a site developed early in our discovery and use of nuclear fission, one would hope our engineering and chemistry knowledge gained over the years would lead to better solutions.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ecycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx

What interests me about that link is the prospect that we might not need to separate it, but rather throw it into a fast-spectrum reactor to attack the nastiest actinides directly.  Sounds like we have options here worth pursuing.


----------



## PaulOinMA (Dec 15, 2018)

BBC World News America (and PBS Newshour) is what I watch for news since I can't watch talking heads screaming at each other.  BBC had a story last night on carbon emissions and food supply.

The story stated 25% of carbon emissions are involved with the production of food.  Some European countries have food labeling that includes carbon impact.

The story mentioned that cow and sheep production are very, very high in carbon emissions and showed a vat of chocolate stirring and chocolate bars when discussing low-carbon foodstuffs.

My New Year's resolution to help the environment will be to eat more chocolate! 

Not sure that I can eat more than I already do, though.


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2018)

spirilis said:


> I've also read part of the problem at Hanford is we have solutions but nobody wants to implement them (as it would stop the funding train for the site if the job were "done")
> 
> https://atomicinsights.com/atomic-show-201-better-way-to-clean-up-hanford-tanks/
> 
> ...


No disagreement that we should continue research here. It should be a component of a multi-pronged shifting of energy sources and economies from linear consumption to a circular system that eliminates waste.


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2018)

PaulOinMA said:


> BBC World News America (and PBS Newshour) is what I watch for news since I can't watch talking heads screaming at each other.  BBC had a story last night on carbon emissions and food supply.
> 
> The story stated 25% of carbon emissions are involved with the production of food.  Some European countries have food labeling that includes carbon impact.
> 
> ...


Food production is definitely an issue. The way we produce food is too carbon intensive. There are better ways. But the huge problem is not food production, but food waste. About 60% of the food we produce never is consumed! Compare this to how the planet works without man. There is no waste in nature.


----------



## wooduser (Dec 15, 2018)

The New York Times isd already promoting the use of insects in the diet of human beings.  We'll be seeing grubs on the school lunch menue before long if they have their way.

Anything to enable and support a population of a billion in this country by the end of the century!

Although WHY we would want they no one ever explains....


----------



## coutufr (Dec 15, 2018)

Solutions do exist but they are useless unless everyone understands why we need to use them. A less egocentric and more educated (educated in the traditional sense of the word) World population is also a requirement to get things changed. It is definitely more of a social science than an engineering problem to solve.


----------



## begreen (Dec 15, 2018)

coutufr said:


> Solutions do exist but they are useless unless everyone understands why we need to use them. A less egocentric and more educated (educated in the traditional sense of the word) World population is also a requirement to get things changed. It is definitely more of a social science than an engineering problem to solve.


That is correct, though we are approaching the point where technological solutions will not work regardless of cooperation. It is only going to be by global collective effort that we can slow down the massive changes that have been set into motion. It's going to take understanding and cooperation by all earthlings.


----------



## Connecticut Yankee (Dec 17, 2018)

spirilis said:


> Put it a different way...
> 
> . . . A devil in the details is where does the Carbon Tax go, how is it redistributed and to whom.



Precisely.  Just ask all those states that instituted lotteries on the basis that the revenue would be used "to support education" how their education budgets these days compare to what they were spending before the lottery.

Personally, I would prefer a "cap and trade" program.  It worked very well on sulfur emisions, and I have no doubt it would also work on carbon emissions.  But it probably would have a bigger effect on corporations that can afford to buy legislators generous campaign contributions than a consumer tax would.


----------

