Nuclear Energy Without Nuclear Waste
Efforts To Date and Limitations
Currently, there are numerous efforts underway to combat Man Made Climate Change.
Since 1960, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on nuclear energy, both fission and fusion, by the US Government and private industry. As we know, fission is both toxic and dangerous - TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Despite 50 years of effort and spending huge amounts of money building hot fusion reactors, they have achieved no positive results to date. ie, the energy they get out is still less than or equal to the input energy.
Each year, tens of billions of dollars are provided to the UN’s Climate Change Initiative, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. Its charter is to combat man made global warming, basically through the evaluation and development of climate models, and then implement global legislative initiatives to control the problem.
Other global efforts include, cleaning coal and scrubbing emissions, increased production and burning of natural gas, as well as power generation from solar, wind and hydro power.
Burning clean, natural gas instead of coal is thought by some to have a significant impact on reducing emissions. However, it is carbon based methane and ethane gas, and gives off substantial CO2 and methane emissions. It is cleaner than coal but also pollutes ground water and air due to fracking and transportation.
However, as standalone energy sources, neither solar, wind, hydro or biofuels (disadvantages) can sustain our total global energy requirements due to various limitations such as power density, climate, geographic location, pollution, toxicity, practicality, reliability and upfront costs. They are best suited in a co-gen application or as an adjunct to our grid system
As mentioned in the Progress page, current LENR units have a power density of between 10,000-100,000 watts/meter squared, and greater. In contrast, nuclear fission comes in at 2,500-5,000 w/m2, natural gas 200-2,000 w/m2, coal 100-1,000 w/m2, solar 10-100 w/m2, wind .5-2 w/m2 and biofuels at .2-1 w/m2.
The significance of this is, within a confined space such as New York City, these compact LENR units have the capacity to generate between 10,000-100,000 watts of power within an area of 1 meter squared. In contrast, solar would require an area 1,000 times larger, in order to generate the same amount of power.
As such, a solar panel/array on top of a major sky scraper in New York or Chicago, doesn't have the power density required to power, heat and cool these buildings, by any stretch. As real estate is both expensive and scarce in major metropolitan areas, solar is not practical for this type of location, wind even less. In addition, when the sun goes down, the lights go out.
In order to power the globe with biofuels/biomass, we would have to plant soybeans and or corn in over half of the land surface. As we need other varieties of vegetables to sustain our health, this would require us to tear down the majority of our forests which would displace all of the animal and plant life contained within, thus destroying out ecosystem. Where are the squirrels, rabitts and deer going to go? As a result, we will only be creating more climate change via this method.
Cloudy days and snow covered earth and buildings - solar won't work. In the winter, frozen water doesn't flow. Solar plants still require and adjunct energy source such as natural gas - clean natural gas.
While the smokestack emissions from gas-burning power plants are lower than coal, gas is worse because of the leakage from the wells to the pipelines and compressor stations to the end-uses -- since methane (the principle component of natural gas) is far more potent at heating the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (which is produced when coal or gas are burned).
Reliability - when the sun don't shine, the wind doesn't blow and the water doesn't flow - you aint got no power. In addition, when the sun goes down, the lights go out.
Upfront costs hydro dams cost too much. Wind turbines are very expensive and produce very litte.
Site Author: John Ellsworth Evans Site Design: Shane G Walker