New Nuke On The Way

The weekend begins and time for the sciencey stuff…….

I am opposed to nuke power as we have it now…..yes, i know the energy i clean…..but the by-product is not…..and there is my problem with the energy….there is virtually no way to dispose of the waste material…..some of that stuff has a half-life of a bazillion years……

graphic novels and the SyFy network is always showing stuff like cool fusion and just how good it could be if it were ever invented……never fear…the future is near!

Nuclear fusion might be achieved in a preheated cylindrical container immersed in strong magnetic fields.  A series of computer simulations performed at Sandia National Laboratories show the release of output energy that was, remarkably, many times greater than the energy fed into the simulation.

Sandia researcher Steve Slutz, lead author of the paper published at Physical Review Letters said, “People didn’t think there was a high-gain option for magnetized inertial fusion (MIF) but these numerical simulations show there is. Now we have to see if nature will let us do it. In principle, we don’t know why we can’t.”  Take that to mean “might” moves to “could”.

The Sandia team is talking about high-gain or quite substantial returns past breakeven reactions.
Before we get too far let’s have a very brief refresher.  The two leading Inertial Electrostatic Confinement (ICE) paths are from Dr. Robert Bussard with quite a bit of design information and the Rostocker design handled quietly by Tri-Alpha Energy.  Add to those the plasma method gaining ground designed and led by Eric Lerner.  The easiest comparison is the Bussard confinement design – a semi spherical (essentially a cube) volume held by magnetic fields within which fusion is occurring and expected to get past breakeven.

This year the press release explains the MIF technique heats the fusion fuel (deuterium-tritium) by compression as in normal inertial fusion, but uses a magnetic field to suppress heat loss during implosion. The magnetic field surrounds a small liner so together they act like a kind of shower curtain to prevent charged particles like electrons and alpha particles from leaving the party early and draining energy from the reaction.

At the top and bottom of the liner are two slightly larger coils that, when electrically powered, create a joined vertical magnetic field that penetrates into the liner, reducing energy loss from charged particles attempting to escape through the liner’s walls.

Once set up the simulated process relies upon a single, relatively low-powered laser to preheat a deuterium-tritium gas mixture that sits within the liner.

An extremely strong magnetic field is created on the surface of the liner by a separate, very powerful electrical current, generated by a pulsed power accelerator such as the Sandia Z accelerator machine. The force of this huge magnetic field pushes the liner inward to a fraction of its original diameter. It also compresses the magnetic field emanating from the coils. The combination is powerful enough to force atoms of gaseous fuel into intimate contact with each other, fusing them.

What they get is an implosion, everything crashing in rather than exploding out.  The product we’re interested in is heat, and the new work shows there is a lot of it.

Heat released from that reaction raises the gaseous fuel’s temperature high enough to ignite a layer of frozen and therefore denser deuterium-tritium fuel coating the inside of the liner. The heat transfer is similar to the way kindling heats a log: when the log ignites, the real heat – here high-yield fusion from ignited frozen fuel – begins.

Tests of physical equipment necessary to validate the computer simulations are already under way at Sandia’s Z accelerator.  Sandia engineer Dean Rovang expects a laboratory result by late 2013.  Sandia has already performed preliminary tests of the coils. Portions of the design are slated to receive their first tests this month and continue into early winter.

Physics is just cool!  Thoughts?

Conversation With Info Ink

This was a conversation I had with one of my readers on the nuke question. Unfortunately the conversation was terminated before we could finish and hopefully more will be had.

lobotero: and?

ss: looks like everything gives off pollution of some sort…just don’t like the nuclear waste 1/2 life of 240,000 years

lobotero: yep…that does suck…lol

lobotero: but what would wind and solar give off?

ss:

Wind

Accident possibilities include toppling towers, flying blades, and falls during construction and maintenance.

Aesthetic intrusion on mountain ridges, passes, and coastlines is feared by some.

ss:

Photovoltaics

Toxic substances used in cell manufacture are occupational hazards, can contaminate water in manufacturing areas, and can be released from overheated or burning cells.

ss:

Geothermal

Water pollution by dissolved salts and toxic elements in geothermal water can affect streams, lakes, and domestic water supplies.

Hydrogen sulfide gas is a toxic and odoriferous air pollutant.

lobotero: but none of that would last 244,000 years, right?

ss: nope

lobotero: gee wheez ….maybe we should consider them…I am sure that controls on stuff woulkd be easier and safer than nukes

lobotero: just a thought

ss: but 2 of the 3 can pollute the water supply

ss: don’t disagree

lobotero: but there is already technology to vclean up the effluent

ss: yep

lobotero: so where is the downside of these energy programs?

ss: funding

ss: and profits

lobotero: so it comes back to capitalism, eh?

ss: yep

ss: btw did you see where tallahassee got approval to build a nuclear power plant

lobotero: so what we are saying is that if there is no profit then the people can just suffer

ss: now that is where we need to see a nuclear power plant in the middle of hurricane prone area

lobotero: yep nbut i will be dead before they finish it…lol

ss: they are saying 4 to 5 years to build…but the people will start seeing this next year a 4% increase in their energy bills now…and that is a 4% per year increase

lobotero: so the power company makes the profit and the people pay more for their power and the tax dollars go to the plant as subsidies….good plan dick brains

ss: read that in my research this morning…got approval in march 2008

lobotero: now how much would the plant cost?

lobotero: then ask how much a wind farm would cost

lobotero: nukes get $70 million government bucks and alternastive energy gets $10 milklion

ss: actually I came across an article that listed the cost of building a nuclear power plant in steel, concrete and all that

lobotero: now tyell me again how serious they are about alternative energy?

lobotero: well tell me….lol

ss: lol…can’t say that they are all that serious about the alternative energy..just like alternative fuels for cars…

lobotero: IMO, they are NEVER serious…it is a way to get votes and will never happen

ss: lobbiests are way to busy

lobotero: Clinton in 1993 put $1.,3 billion in the budget for renewable engery and alt enrgy and where did that get us? R we any closer now than in 1993?….HELL NO!

ss: nope…

lobotero: so why would i believe that McCain or Obama has any other plan than what is from the past?

ss: nobody in their right mind would

ss: they are politicians out to get your vote

lobotero: They pander to the voter….that is a polite way of calling them what they are….fucking lairs.

ss: see we said the same thing again…lol

lobotero: yep

ss: we have way to many smart people out there to not have already come up with alternatives. they just keep disappearing off the radar..

lobotero: they are usually bought off with corporate cash

Link Terminated………..

If anyone would like to have a conversation with the editor of Info Ink please let me know and we will set up a time and place.

What Will Be The Future Of Energy?

In 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, world “liquids” demand is expected to reach 117.6 million barrels per day. Of this amount, unconventional fuels – synthetic liquids derived from tar sands, shale rock, and biofuels – may provide a total of 10.5 million barrels. That leaves 107.1 million to be supplied by conventional petroleum. But what if global oil output has fallen to 60-70% of that amount by 2030, as projected by many analysts? Under those circumstances, no amount of oil from Alaska or the outer continental shelf will be able to save this country (or the rest of the world) from a catastrophic energy crisis.

Some say that any palliative is worth the expense as we head toward certain disaster. But this is not a logical response. Knowing that the age of petroleum is drawing to a close, it is far better to devote our talents and investment dollars on hastening the arrival of its successor, rather than prolonging the agony of oil’s decline.

At this point, we cannot be absolute certain of the dominant energy source of the post-petroleum era. Will it be the Solar Age or the Biofuels Age or the Hydrogen Age? But we do know that it will revolve around some constellation of renewable, climate-friendly, domestically-produced supplies. From now on, America’s top priority in the energy field must be to explore all potential components of this new energy future and move swiftly to develop those with the greatest promise.

2030 is 22 yrs from now and will the next president truly be the author of a new and more environment friendly energy policy? I am thinking…no they will not…..somehow, something will happen to move this to the back burner….yet again.

Scientist Calls For Energy CEOs To Be Held Responsible

In testimony before the US Congress on Monday, James Hansen, a leading climatologist, called heads of major energy companies criminals who should be prosecuted for deliberately spreading false and misleading information about the threat posed by global warming.

Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to mark the 20th anniversary of his initial appearance before Congress in 1988. He generated the first significant public awareness of the issue of global warming by telling the Senate at that time that manmade greenhouse gasses were raising global temperatures.

Since then climate scientists have reached a virtually unanimous consensus that the burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide, trapping heat. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century, and global temperatures are rising as a result.

Hansen decried the extremely limited official goals set for reducing carbon emissions calling them “a recipe for global disaster.” He called for a moratorium on the construction of coal burning power plants and the development of carbon free alternatives to coal and petroleum.

Hansen indicted the energy conglomerates for blocking action on global warming. “Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions about global warming.”

Despite Hansen’s compelling testimony, there are no indications that US policy will change. Since Hansen first appeared before Congress in 1988, neither the Clinton administration nor the administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush have passed any major legislation restricting greenhouse gas emissions. There have been 21 coal-fired power plants constructed and US emissions of carbon dioxide have risen by some 18 percent.

The domination of the energy sector by a handful of private monopolies and the subordination of both the Republicans and Democrats to these powerful interests blocks the adoption of any serious measures to deal with the looming catastrophe posed by global warming. These multibillion dollar corporations will not tolerate any measure, no matter how critical for human survival, that impinges on their profits.

Further, any strategy to oppose global warming requires a coordinated international effort. However, energy companies dominate US foreign policy as well, dictating a strategy that seeks to secure world hegemony, including the invasion and occupation of Iraq and other oil rich regions of the world.

Truth About Your New Light Bulbs

I wrote a piece awhile back about the dangers of the new light bulbs (CFL) and then I was reading on the Green Party website and found that they and others are hardily supporting the new bulbs.  I just had to send a letter to the Party about their position.  It follows here:

I recently was on the website of the Green Party, USA and found their 10 values, which are excellent values to have, but I read their #3:

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature.  We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet.

We support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

Why do I bring this particular one up? I will answer that in awhile, but there is more I need to say first. On the Mississippi chapter of the Green Party they display a piece from 18seconds.org telling about the benefits of the new CFL bulbs. The say that say that Mississippians have bought 2,219,236 of the bulbs. Those bulbs have saved 188,624,690 lbs of coal and that 807,313,672 lbs of carbon monoxide have been eliminated and that $51 million have been saved by using the bulbs. It also says that 12,854 cars are off the road. Now what does cars have to do with the bulbs? Got no idea but wanted to include all the stats.

This statement is part of the Green Party’s 2008 Environmental policy statement:

· No new coal fired-power plants; no new nuclear power plants; reduce by 90% the mercury emissions of coal-fired power plants by 2012; protect human health and the environment.in the disposal of coal-fired power plant wastes.

Again the Green party is concerned with gaining votes than a real solution to the problem. They are willing to support reduction in mercury emissions, while supporting a position that will add mercury to the soil and water table. A helluva plan!

There is at least one presidential that is on the bandwagon for the new bulbs. From the Clinton website:

An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

Now you are definitely asking what has all this to do with anything? Let me ask, how will you dispose of the bulbs when you have to replace them? Probably throw them in your trash, right? I know, get to the

you have to replace them? Probably throw them in your trash, right? I know, get to the point Professor. Next time you buy the new bulbs look at the bottom of the package. The bulbs contain mercury. And according to the EPA fall under this Act:

These bulbs will be consider hazardous waste and as such will fall under the Resources Conservation and recovery Act (RCRA). And as such cannot be disposed of in incenerators or landfills.

Household users of efficient mercury containing fluorescent lamps, including compact fluorescents, are typically exempt from special disposal requirements although a few states and localities ban homeowners from disposing of such lamps in normal household trash. Sorry, but this is not acceptable.

Now my point is, how many consumers will read the bottom of the package? When they change a bulb where will they throw it? Knowing the answers to these questions, the one to ask now is how long will it take the mercury to get into the water table?

Once it enters the water table here is what the population has to look forward to:

1. Psychological Disturbances (erethysm)
Irritability, Nervousness, Fits of Anger, Memory Loss, Lack of Attention, Depression, Low Self Confidence, Anxiety, Drowsiness, Shyness/timidity, Decline of Intellect, Insomnia, Low Self Control.

2. Oral Cavity Disorders
Bleeding Gums, White Patches – Mouth, Stomatitis, Bone Loss Around Teeth, Loosening of Teeth, Ulcers of Gums- Palate- Tongue, Excessive Saliva, Burning of Mouth, Foul Breath, Gum Pigmentation, Metalic Taste.

3. Gastrointestinal Effects
Abdominal Cramps, Colitis, Crohn’s disease, Gastrointestinal Problems, Diarrhea.

4. Systemic Effects
Cardiovascular, Irregular Heart Beat, Changes in Blood Pressure, Feeble or  Irregular Pulse, Pain or Pressure in Chest

5. Neurologic
Chronic or Frequent Headaches, Dizziness, Ringing or Noises in Ears, Fine Tremors (Hands, Feet, Eye Lids, Tongue)

6. Respiratory
Persistant Cough, Emphysema, Shallow or Irregular Breathing.

7. Immunological
Allergies, Asthma, Rhinitis, Sinusitis, Swollen Lymph Nodes in Neck

8. Endocrine
Subnormal Temperature, Cold Clammy Hands & Feet, Excessive Perspiration, Muscle Weakness, Fatigue, Hypoxia, Edema, Loss of Appetite, Loss of Weight, Joint Pain.

Mercury is an element in the earth’s crust. Humans cannot create or destroy mercury. Pure mercury is a liquid metal, sometimes referred to as quicksilver that volatizes readily. It has traditionally been used to make products like thermometers, switches, and some light bulbs.

Mercury is found in many rocks including coal. When coal is burned, mercury is released into the environment. Coal-burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emissions to the air in the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions. EPA has estimated that about one quarter of U.S. emissions from coal-burning power plants are deposited within the contiguous U.S. and the remainder enters the global cycle. Burning hazardous wastes, producing chlorine, breaking mercury products, and spilling mercury, as well as the improper treatment and disposal of products or wastes containing mercury, can also release it into the environment. Current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the U.S. comes from U.S. sources.

Time for the people to wake up! A wonderful thing, energy saving, but everything comes at a price and the CFLs have a price. My question is why would anyone support anything that would have such lasting effects? We settle for short term feel good solutions and the whole time we are poisoning our children’s children. Good plan!

My point is that this is NOT the answer!

New Light Bulbs And Health

we have all seen the new bulbs, those squiggly things that are butt ugly…..by a few years the bulbs that you use now will no longer be sold and we all will be forced to use the squiggly thingys.  So I thought I would get a jump on the mandatory use “law” and start buying them now…..GE should be happy they will make a butt load of money off of these…..I was gonna replace a bulb and open my new package and read the label……Do any of you realize that these bulbs contain mercury and that there is a warning label on the package?

What is my point?  After thinking it over, I wondered once the bulbs are mandatory and they will be showing up in masse in landfills, how long will it be until the mercury makes it to the water table?  How long will it take before the fish and wildlife are poisoned?  Then eventuall, how long before the neurological effects show up in humans, especially newborns?

My daughter ask me what the catch was when they first started pushing these new tyoes of bulbs…..at that time i did not have an answer….but now her question has been answered.