Clean Power

Published on September 11th, 2008 | by Rod Adams

19

Answer to an Amory Lovins Disciple Who Believes in Conservation, Solar, Wind and Micropower

September 11th, 2008 by  

In addition to my efforts on Green Options publications like CleanTechnica, I also publish a blog titled Atomic Insights. On that blog, I have recently been engaged in a conversation with a reader named Gordon, who is a believer in the energy supply systems that Amory Lovins has been advocating for more than 35 years. I addressed this response to Gordon, but it is a more generally applicable response for anyone who wants to follow the non-nuclear “soft energy path”.

Gordon:

One thing you apparently do not understand about nuclear fission is that it can come in a variety of sizes. Not all plants are the extra large central station power plants that you are discussing.

I am currently the only (unpaid) employee of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. We have not yet gained sufficient investor traction to move forward with our design, but our plan is to produce plants in sizes ranging from about 1 – 50 MWe.

Our plants will use long-lived reactors as heat sources for turbo machines that closely resemble the gas turbines engines that have enabled low capital costs for systems burning natural gas. Our advantages will be that our heat costs about 1/3 as much, it will be available anywhere in the world, and it does not release any greenhouse gases at all.

Though Adams EnginesTM are pretty far off at this point – my stubborn streak has interfered with my ability ability to raise sufficient capital – there are better organized companies that are pursuing similar concepts.

Hyperion Power Generation, for example, is focusing on a heating unit that is small enough to fit on the back of an over-the-road truck that can produce 70 MW of thermal energy constantly for several years. I spoke to the company founder for The Atomic Show Podcast and he explained how his company is establishing the supply chain needed to build 4,000 units that will be able to provide heat for about $3 per million BTU. By comparison, liquified natural gas sold in Japan last week for $20 per million BTU.

Hyperion’s patented technology was developed by a Los Alamos National Laboratory team led by Otis (Pete) Peterson and is backed by Altira Group LLC.

They are the real deal and have designed a system that meets every design criteria that Lovins could want – except the fact that it uses nuclear fission as the heat source. After reading Lovins’s work dating back more than 35 years, I know he has a firm aversion to that basic physical phenomenon.

Hyperion is not alone in thinking that small, simple, passively safe fission power plants can change the world. I also spoke recently to the CEO and the Chief Technology Officer for NuScale Power, a company that grew out of a research project at Oregon State University.

Their system, originally called the Multi-Application Simple Light Water Reactor (MASLWR), is designed to be built in a factory and transported to a site on a ship, train, specialized truck or barge ready to produce 45 MW of electricity. The entire nuclear steam supply system will be in a container that is 60 feet long and 15 feet in diameter.

Again, NuScale is up and running with a good chance of success. The CTO began his career with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and has taught engineering at Oregon State University for more than 20 years. The CEO – Paul Lorenzini – was the president of PacifCorp and was lured out of retirement by his belief in the idea that the system could meet a real and pressing market need.

I know some of the members of the team that is now doing the detailed design and will be leading the licensing effort. They are some of the smartest and most innovative engineers I have met in the nuclear industry. NuScale is backed by CMEA Ventures.

Like many evangelists, Amory Lovins preaches a message that has a certain attraction and even some validity, but because he is a professional anti-nuke he has assiduously avoided the only known technology that could make his post-fossil fuel, distributed power system actually workable. I have told him – in person – at least twice about the existence of small, distributed nuclear fission power plants, but that message has apparently not been received.

There is no such thing as “firmed wind” or reliable solar power in a world where windless high pressure areas often rest over entire countries for days to weeks and where the sun sets every single day and is interrupted by dense clouds on a regular basis.

Highly sophisticated wind-based transportation demonstrated its very real limitations compared to even primitive coal-fueled steam engines more than 150 years ago, but nuclear fission power is currently propelling some of the fastest and most reliable ships on the ocean.

Emission free nuclear fission power has been proven reliable at the North Pole, in Antarctica, Alaska, Siberia, and other remote locations where the weather is harsh and deadly. In many remote places, the only way to use less power is to avoid going there, but sometimes that is not an option.

When you or Lovins claim that you can always fall back on grid power or even distributed combustion based “micropower” people like me and Atomic Insights readers see that as an acknowledgment that you plan to always have a large component of fossil fuel in your future power and energy systems.

Since most of us believe that the world is going to use more energy in the future, not less, we see that vision as a de facto endorsement of an ever increasing dependence on a depleting and polluting fuel source. In the case of Lovins, I believe he knows that he is really selling coal, oil and gas. I am not sure about you yet.

Fission makes that continued, nearly exclusive dependence unnecessary. The grid that I envision includes some large central station nuclear power plants like those being built by Areva, Westinghouse, Atomstroyexport, GE, Toshiba, and Mitsubishi. Those plants will fit into our existing, expensively constructed grids to provide stability and replace the coal and natural gas fired power plants that currently provide 70% of the electricity in the US. It also includes lot of small nukes like those advocated by Hyperion, NuScale, Toshiba, and Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. to supply power to places not reached by the existing grid and to fill in weak spots or incremental growth in grid supplied areas.

My future energy visions includes distributed nuclear fission power on ships, nuclear fission powered electrified trains, plug in electric vehicles, and possibly even atomic turbine engines directly powering large aircraft. There are sufficient stores of uranium and thorium in the world to supply the kind of abundant, reliable power system needed to enable human comfort, ingenuity and development for thousands of years.

PS – I am under verbal non-disclosure agreements with two more companies that should be announcing their entries into the small nuclear power plant market by the end of this year. There is plenty of room for more entries, the potential size of the market is measured in the trillions of dollars.

Related Posts


Buy a cool T-shirt or mug in the CleanTechnica store!
 
Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech daily newsletter or weekly newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: , , , ,


About the Author

loves and respects our common environment, but he has a fatal flaw in the eyes of many environmentalists -- he's a huge fan of atomic energy. Reduce, reuse, and recycle have been watchwords for Rod since his father taught him that raising rabbits is a great way to turn kitchen scraps into fertilizer for backyard fruit trees and vegetable gardens. They built a compost heap together in about 1967, when he was 8 and when Earth Day was a mere gleam in some people's eye. During his professional career, he has served in several assignments on nuclear submarines, including a 40-month tour as the Engineer Officer of the USS Von Steuben. In 1994, he was awarded US patent number 5309592 for the control system for a closed-cycle gas turbine. He founded Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. in 1993, started Atomic Insights in 1995, and began producing the Atomic Show Podcast in 2006. He is currently an active duty officer (O-5) in the US Navy. He looks forward to many interesting discussions.



  • ond

    Nuclear proliferation is a red herring. Everyone who desires can read about how to manufacture nuclear weapons, and the simplest route is natural uranium sightly toasted in graphite pile, followed by a simple chemical reprocessing. 60 years old technology, a textbook case – for those who read textbooks. Of course one needs to be a sovereign nation to get away with it. And any nation, who so desires, got a nuke (or got a nuke factory dusted). Even the pitiful starving North Korea.

    Using reactor grade materials for weapons is typically much more complicated up to close to impossible (spent fuel), therefore it is illogical to consite proliferation threat. Not only for simplicity but also due to concealment reasons is it preferable to keep the weapon related activities separate.

    Most of the countries who have nuclear power plants do not (wish to) have nuclear weapons, those who have weapons them developed before or independently off their civilian program.

    Therefore nuclear proliferation is a political problem – solve the desire of nations to obtain nuclear weapons, a powerful invasion deterrent.

    Concerning advanced closed nuclear fuel cycles, necessary for such an expansion, see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html

    Closed cycle fissions down all the heavy metal nuclei, uran and transurans including Np, Pu, Am, Cm,.. Waste from thee cycles are much less short lived, rare materials most of them quite valuable and each usable in industry& medicine.

    See also thorium cycle, which produces practically no Pu –

    http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/two-four-six-eight-we-dont-want-to.html

    Second, we know quite something about long term effects of radiation, natural BG radiation is orders magnitude above man-man doses.

    Last, if we hope to replace fossil fuels with something else, and also provide enough energy for emerging nations, we need to increase the nuclear generation by .85/0.06 *(2~4) = 30 ~ 60 times.

  • ond

    Nuclear proliferation is a red herring. Everyone who desires can read about how to manufacture nuclear weapons, and the simplest route is natural uranium sightly toasted in graphite pile, followed by a simple chemical reprocessing. 60 years old technology, a textbook case – for those who read textbooks. Of course one needs to be a sovereign nation to get away with it. And any nation, who so desires, got a nuke (or got a nuke factory dusted). Even the pitiful starving North Korea.

    Using reactor grade materials for weapons is typically much more complicated up to close to impossible (spent fuel), therefore it is illogical to consite proliferation threat. Not only for simplicity but also due to concealment reasons is it preferable to keep the weapon related activities separate.

    Most of the countries who have nuclear power plants do not (wish to) have nuclear weapons, those who have weapons them developed before or independently off their civilian program.

    Therefore nuclear proliferation is a political problem – solve the desire of nations to obtain nuclear weapons, a powerful invasion deterrent.

    Concerning advanced closed nuclear fuel cycles, necessary for such an expansion, see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html

    Closed cycle fissions down all the heavy metal nuclei, uran and transurans including Np, Pu, Am, Cm,.. Waste from thee cycles are much less short lived, rare materials most of them quite valuable and each usable in industry& medicine.

    See also thorium cycle, which produces practically no Pu –

    http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/two-four-six-eight-we-dont-want-to.html

    Second, we know quite something about long term effects of radiation, natural BG radiation is orders magnitude above man-man doses.

    Last, if we hope to replace fossil fuels with something else, and also provide enough energy for emerging nations, we need to increase the nuclear generation by .85/0.06 *(2~4) = 30 ~ 60 times.

  • ond

    Nuclear proliferation is a red herring. Everyone who desires can read about how to manufacture nuclear weapons, and the simplest route is natural uranium sightly toasted in graphite pile, followed by a simple chemical reprocessing. 60 years old technology, a textbook case – for those who read textbooks. Of course one needs to be a sovereign nation to get away with it. And any nation, who so desires, got a nuke (or got a nuke factory dusted). Even the pitiful starving North Korea.

    Using reactor grade materials for weapons is typically much more complicated up to close to impossible (spent fuel), therefore it is illogical to consite proliferation threat. Not only for simplicity but also due to concealment reasons is it preferable to keep the weapon related activities separate.

    Most of the countries who have nuclear power plants do not (wish to) have nuclear weapons, those who have weapons them developed before or independently off their civilian program.

    Therefore nuclear proliferation is a political problem – solve the desire of nations to obtain nuclear weapons, a powerful invasion deterrent.

    Concerning advanced closed nuclear fuel cycles, necessary for such an expansion, see http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html

    Closed cycle fissions down all the heavy metal nuclei, uran and transurans including Np, Pu, Am, Cm,.. Waste from thee cycles are much less short lived, rare materials most of them quite valuable and each usable in industry& medicine.

    See also thorium cycle, which produces practically no Pu –

    http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/08/two-four-six-eight-we-dont-want-to.html

    Second, we know quite something about long term effects of radiation, natural BG radiation is orders magnitude above man-man doses.

    Last, if we hope to replace fossil fuels with something else, and also provide enough energy for emerging nations, we need to increase the nuclear generation by .85/0.06 *(2~4) = 30 ~ 60 times.

  • Rob:

    Though trash will always be with us, the quantity is insufficient to provide much of our energy needs.

    I once lived in a county (Pinellas County Florida) with about 3 million residents. We had a modern waste to energy plant that took in all of the burnable trash that the entire county produced. The plant produced less than 50 MW of electricity.

    Correction: posted 9/12/2008 9:09 pm I should have done the search. The Pinellas County Waste To Energy plant produces 75 MWe with 15 used for internal power and 60 available for the grid.

  • Rob:

    Though trash will always be with us, the quantity is insufficient to provide much of our energy needs.

    I once lived in a county (Pinellas County Florida) with about 3 million residents. We had a modern waste to energy plant that took in all of the burnable trash that the entire county produced. The plant produced less than 50 MW of electricity.

    Correction: posted 9/12/2008 9:09 pm I should have done the search. The Pinellas County Waste To Energy plant produces 75 MWe with 15 used for internal power and 60 available for the grid.

  • Rob:

    Though trash will always be with us, the quantity is insufficient to provide much of our energy needs.

    I once lived in a county (Pinellas County Florida) with about 3 million residents. We had a modern waste to energy plant that took in all of the burnable trash that the entire county produced. The plant produced less than 50 MW of electricity.

    Correction: posted 9/12/2008 9:09 pm I should have done the search. The Pinellas County Waste To Energy plant produces 75 MWe with 15 used for internal power and 60 available for the grid.

  • Writer to the World:

    The concept for the Hyperion Power Module – and other small reactors – is that they would be fueled in a factory and sealed up with no access to the active material for the end user.

    The reports that you have read about radioisotopes in steam produced in nuclear plants are not accurate. I have spent many months inside a sealed submarine that contained a steam power plant where the steam was indirectly created by nuclear heat. We had some very sensitive instruments and would have recognized any contamination. Didn’t happen. The well publicized “leaks” have often been of material that is less contaminated than the water in a hot spring.

    Finally, the “waste issue” is greatly overblown. We have been safely handling the byproducts of nuclear fission power plants for more than 50 years. The total volume would not even make a small hill inside a single football stadium.

    In contrast to the fossil fuel competition, nuclear fission is safe, clean, abundant and reliable. Other alternatives have some of those characteristics, but none have all of them.

  • Writer to the World:

    The concept for the Hyperion Power Module – and other small reactors – is that they would be fueled in a factory and sealed up with no access to the active material for the end user.

    The reports that you have read about radioisotopes in steam produced in nuclear plants are not accurate. I have spent many months inside a sealed submarine that contained a steam power plant where the steam was indirectly created by nuclear heat. We had some very sensitive instruments and would have recognized any contamination. Didn’t happen. The well publicized “leaks” have often been of material that is less contaminated than the water in a hot spring.

    Finally, the “waste issue” is greatly overblown. We have been safely handling the byproducts of nuclear fission power plants for more than 50 years. The total volume would not even make a small hill inside a single football stadium.

    In contrast to the fossil fuel competition, nuclear fission is safe, clean, abundant and reliable. Other alternatives have some of those characteristics, but none have all of them.

  • This technology is a bit alarming to me, but I await a higher degree of edification from your expert if my concerns listed below are incorrect.

    First, this technology would effectively expand nuclear proliferation on an emormous scale. The transport, storage and distribution of fissionble-grade uranium would have inherent dangers that I instinctively feel would outweigh the benefits.

    Second, I’ve read reports that the steam from nuclear plants has radioactive isotopes in it, and no one is sure what long-term effects these isotopes might have.

    Finally, the nuclear waste issue would be also made far greater by this distributed nuclear energy scheme. It doesn’t seem feasible to me to expand the use of nuclear in this manner when we are having trouble disposing of the waste we have now.

    As a footnote, I do recognize that nuclear power will have to be a major part of the energy mix for many years to come. I just think we have to be very cautious about how big of a percentage it is.

  • This technology is a bit alarming to me, but I await a higher degree of edification from your expert if my concerns listed below are incorrect.

    First, this technology would effectively expand nuclear proliferation on an emormous scale. The transport, storage and distribution of fissionble-grade uranium would have inherent dangers that I instinctively feel would outweigh the benefits.

    Second, I’ve read reports that the steam from nuclear plants has radioactive isotopes in it, and no one is sure what long-term effects these isotopes might have.

    Finally, the nuclear waste issue would be also made far greater by this distributed nuclear energy scheme. It doesn’t seem feasible to me to expand the use of nuclear in this manner when we are having trouble disposing of the waste we have now.

    As a footnote, I do recognize that nuclear power will have to be a major part of the energy mix for many years to come. I just think we have to be very cautious about how big of a percentage it is.

  • This technology is a bit alarming to me, but I await a higher degree of edification from your expert if my concerns listed below are incorrect.

    First, this technology would effectively expand nuclear proliferation on an emormous scale. The transport, storage and distribution of fissionble-grade uranium would have inherent dangers that I instinctively feel would outweigh the benefits.

    Second, I’ve read reports that the steam from nuclear plants has radioactive isotopes in it, and no one is sure what long-term effects these isotopes might have.

    Finally, the nuclear waste issue would be also made far greater by this distributed nuclear energy scheme. It doesn’t seem feasible to me to expand the use of nuclear in this manner when we are having trouble disposing of the waste we have now.

    As a footnote, I do recognize that nuclear power will have to be a major part of the energy mix for many years to come. I just think we have to be very cautious about how big of a percentage it is.

  • Finrod

    Hmm. Rob, safe methods of recharging (refuelling?), waste disposal, and decommissioning are either developed and in practice, or known to be achievable with a bit of investment (by which I mean building some pilot plants followed by infrastructure, not fundamental research).

    I think you may be a little confused about terminology. A nuclear power plant doesn’t produce any net power until after it’s gone critical. Going critical just means that enough fuel is packed together for a chain reaction to occur. If you don’t do that, no power can be generated. I suspect what you mean is that reactors should be guaranteed meltdown-proof.

    This can be achieved with the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor design. If you build the reactors below a certain size, they cannot ever generate enough power for a meltdown. Another solution is to a reactor which uses molten fuel to begin with. ‘Meltdown’ is then the normal mode of operation, and they can be designed so that any deviation from normal operation reduces the nuclear reaction.

    Of course, there’s very little risk of meltdown in modern reactors anyway, and multiple safeguards even if it does happen, but there are safer designs still, and we will probably have them in operation one day.

    As for dirty bombs, they are possible, but the risk from them is exaggerated. Radiological weapons are not very effective (military studies were done back in the 1950s which concluded that they were militarily useless). I’m not sure what terrorist objective would be met by threatening people with a 10% increased likelihood of cancer over a period of 30 years, but if there is one, it could be much more easily met by raiding a cancer clinic for radioactive medical isotopes than a nuclear power plant or waste repository.

    The trouble with burning waste to generate energy is that all that waste took energy to produce in the first place (back when it was food, or plastic wrap, or cooking oil), and its energy content has been dropping all the way down the path of becoming waste. You would soon run out of burnable waste, and then your fuel stream would rapidly run dry. Then you would discover the connection between ‘biowaste’ being depleted’ and ‘as long as humans are alive’.

    No organism in nature survives entirely by consuming its own wastes. People familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics appreciate this.

    Regarding solar and wind, it’s true that some places are better for them than others, but that does not necessarily mean that any places would be better off using those sources rather than nuclear. The evidence is rather in the opposite direction, that nuclear solutions superior to any alternative exist for most, if not all, circumstances.

  • Finrod

    Hmm. Rob, safe methods of recharging (refuelling?), waste disposal, and decommissioning are either developed and in practice, or known to be achievable with a bit of investment (by which I mean building some pilot plants followed by infrastructure, not fundamental research).

    I think you may be a little confused about terminology. A nuclear power plant doesn’t produce any net power until after it’s gone critical. Going critical just means that enough fuel is packed together for a chain reaction to occur. If you don’t do that, no power can be generated. I suspect what you mean is that reactors should be guaranteed meltdown-proof.

    This can be achieved with the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor design. If you build the reactors below a certain size, they cannot ever generate enough power for a meltdown. Another solution is to a reactor which uses molten fuel to begin with. ‘Meltdown’ is then the normal mode of operation, and they can be designed so that any deviation from normal operation reduces the nuclear reaction.

    Of course, there’s very little risk of meltdown in modern reactors anyway, and multiple safeguards even if it does happen, but there are safer designs still, and we will probably have them in operation one day.

    As for dirty bombs, they are possible, but the risk from them is exaggerated. Radiological weapons are not very effective (military studies were done back in the 1950s which concluded that they were militarily useless). I’m not sure what terrorist objective would be met by threatening people with a 10% increased likelihood of cancer over a period of 30 years, but if there is one, it could be much more easily met by raiding a cancer clinic for radioactive medical isotopes than a nuclear power plant or waste repository.

    The trouble with burning waste to generate energy is that all that waste took energy to produce in the first place (back when it was food, or plastic wrap, or cooking oil), and its energy content has been dropping all the way down the path of becoming waste. You would soon run out of burnable waste, and then your fuel stream would rapidly run dry. Then you would discover the connection between ‘biowaste’ being depleted’ and ‘as long as humans are alive’.

    No organism in nature survives entirely by consuming its own wastes. People familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics appreciate this.

    Regarding solar and wind, it’s true that some places are better for them than others, but that does not necessarily mean that any places would be better off using those sources rather than nuclear. The evidence is rather in the opposite direction, that nuclear solutions superior to any alternative exist for most, if not all, circumstances.

  • rob

    my concerns with nuclear power are as follows:

    1) setting up a safe way to recharge these plants, dispose of waste, and eventually decommission the plants.

    2) ensuring that said plants cannot be made to go critical or have parts that could be easily used to construct a dirty bomb.

    My sugestion for an alternatives would trash and biowaste plants. While some remote areas would still be bettery off with a nuclear plant, we are continually having to alocate more space to the trash we create and it could be turned into power. Granted it is pobably dirtier than coal, but CO2 emissions can be regulated and even used in combination with a algae fuel farm to produce useful products. As the number of people grow, the demand for food and the waste from consuming the food will grow. what we flush can be useful to us.

    Okay, yes, dirty technologies, but is burial of trash any cleaner? On the biowaste side I suspect, but aI could be wrong, that our biowaste is already used as fertilizer and therefore using it as power may actually take a vital resource for farms away.

    But really, do you see biowaste or trash itself being depleted as long as people are alive?

    as far as solar and wind, there are places better suited to that technology and while they can only generate eletricity when the sun is out or win blowing, energy can be stored. the critical question is, will we upgrade the power lines to move it to where it is needed, or will people move to where the cheap solar and wind is first?

    Datacenters use up a lot of power. one of the things companys look for then they setup shop is where cheap power is. I wouldn’t be surprized if there was a good sized population shift either due to: cost of food, cost of electricity, cost of clean water, or a little bit of everything.

  • rob

    my concerns with nuclear power are as follows:

    1) setting up a safe way to recharge these plants, dispose of waste, and eventually decommission the plants.

    2) ensuring that said plants cannot be made to go critical or have parts that could be easily used to construct a dirty bomb.

    My sugestion for an alternatives would trash and biowaste plants. While some remote areas would still be bettery off with a nuclear plant, we are continually having to alocate more space to the trash we create and it could be turned into power. Granted it is pobably dirtier than coal, but CO2 emissions can be regulated and even used in combination with a algae fuel farm to produce useful products. As the number of people grow, the demand for food and the waste from consuming the food will grow. what we flush can be useful to us.

    Okay, yes, dirty technologies, but is burial of trash any cleaner? On the biowaste side I suspect, but aI could be wrong, that our biowaste is already used as fertilizer and therefore using it as power may actually take a vital resource for farms away.

    But really, do you see biowaste or trash itself being depleted as long as people are alive?

    as far as solar and wind, there are places better suited to that technology and while they can only generate eletricity when the sun is out or win blowing, energy can be stored. the critical question is, will we upgrade the power lines to move it to where it is needed, or will people move to where the cheap solar and wind is first?

    Datacenters use up a lot of power. one of the things companys look for then they setup shop is where cheap power is. I wouldn’t be surprized if there was a good sized population shift either due to: cost of food, cost of electricity, cost of clean water, or a little bit of everything.

  • rob

    my concerns with nuclear power are as follows:

    1) setting up a safe way to recharge these plants, dispose of waste, and eventually decommission the plants.

    2) ensuring that said plants cannot be made to go critical or have parts that could be easily used to construct a dirty bomb.

    My sugestion for an alternatives would trash and biowaste plants. While some remote areas would still be bettery off with a nuclear plant, we are continually having to alocate more space to the trash we create and it could be turned into power. Granted it is pobably dirtier than coal, but CO2 emissions can be regulated and even used in combination with a algae fuel farm to produce useful products. As the number of people grow, the demand for food and the waste from consuming the food will grow. what we flush can be useful to us.

    Okay, yes, dirty technologies, but is burial of trash any cleaner? On the biowaste side I suspect, but aI could be wrong, that our biowaste is already used as fertilizer and therefore using it as power may actually take a vital resource for farms away.

    But really, do you see biowaste or trash itself being depleted as long as people are alive?

    as far as solar and wind, there are places better suited to that technology and while they can only generate eletricity when the sun is out or win blowing, energy can be stored. the critical question is, will we upgrade the power lines to move it to where it is needed, or will people move to where the cheap solar and wind is first?

    Datacenters use up a lot of power. one of the things companys look for then they setup shop is where cheap power is. I wouldn’t be surprized if there was a good sized population shift either due to: cost of food, cost of electricity, cost of clean water, or a little bit of everything.

  • Jim Baerg

    There is also the possibility of making liquid fuels for mobile machinery from CO2 extracted from the air & nuclear energy. See the link for how some people at Los Alamos think it can be done at a reasonable cost.

    http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554

    Click on the link to the pdf on that page for a more detailed paper.

  • Jim Baerg

    There is also the possibility of making liquid fuels for mobile machinery from CO2 extracted from the air & nuclear energy. See the link for how some people at Los Alamos think it can be done at a reasonable cost.

    http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554

    Click on the link to the pdf on that page for a more detailed paper.

  • Jim Baerg

    There is also the possibility of making liquid fuels for mobile machinery from CO2 extracted from the air & nuclear energy. See the link for how some people at Los Alamos think it can be done at a reasonable cost.

    http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554

    Click on the link to the pdf on that page for a more detailed paper.

Back to Top ↑