Article View: sci.physics
Article #1467Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
From: mdd
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:13
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 22:13
37 lines
2808 bytes
2808 bytes
No one seems to have mentioned this yet...There are other ways to distribute solar power besides using an electrical grid. Solar power can be used to convert water to hydrogen quite efficiently and the hydrogen could then be transported through an infrastructure similar to the natural gas infrastructure that already exists. End users would then burn the hydrogen. Or even better use it to power fuel cells. It is likely (I am no expert) that is a more cost effective approach to solar energy than erecting solar panels on the East coast, say. Another renewable energy source that doesn't contribute to global warming would be gasification of biomass. Biomass grown and harvested specifically for energy use can be turned into hydrogen and methane that can then be transported in pipelines and burned. There is no net increase in atmospheric CO2 if things are managed correctly. It seems pretty clear to me that people need to think about these new technologies. The picture of solar energy as a panel on every rooftop is somewhat outdated. New nuclear power is not much more than a stopgap measure, at least in its present form. And certainly any new nuclear plants should not be in the old style. Safer, smaller plants of uniform and well-tested design is the preferred direction. I seem to recall that there is only about 70 years worth of fissionable uranium to be found, although breeder reactors would be able to get around this shortcoming. In summary, there are several different alternative energy sources that are environmentally benign and could be quickly developed and implemented if we chose to vigorously pursue them. And, finally, there certainly can be nothing wrong with encouraging conservation. New building designs that can greatly reduce the amount of power used for heating and air conditioning is one area of active research. Conservation is certainly cheaper and more cost-effective than building new plants. Why else would power companies offer $30 million for an efficient, CFC-free refrigerator? Well I have gone on enough so I'll stop here. Mark Doyle, Almost Ph(inishe)D. mdd@nextc.princeton.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Jul24.221351.10050@Princeton.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!kb2ear!princeton!nextc.Princeton.EDU!mddReferences:
<1992Jul24.210910.5092@vexcel.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!kb2ear!princeton!nextc.Princeton.EDU!mdd From: mdd@nextc.Princeton.EDU.ampr.org Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc) Message-ID: <1992Jul24.221351.10050@Princeton.EDU> Date: 24 Jul 92 22:13:51 GMT References: <1992Jul24.210910.5092@vexcel.com> Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System) Reply-To: mdd@nextc.princeton.edu Organization: Princeton University Lines: 37 Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU Nntp-Posting-Host: nextc.princeton.edu