From Air and Water... you can get Gasoline..........?

[TheSilverBuick]

Last reply- SilverBuick got me looking- per Wikipedia:

"The drawbacks of hydrogen use are low energy content per unit volume, high tankage weights, very high storage vessel pressures, the storage, transportation and filling of gaseous or liquid hydrogen in vehicles, the large investment in infrastructure that would be required to fuel vehicles, and the inefficiency of production processes."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

The way I read it, we are both right.

I can agree at this point it's a push on reasoning. But if there is a dollar to be made then engineering will get around storage and transfer issues. There are already talks of mandates for truck stops to store commercial amounts of CNG to shift the infrastructure that way. If that goes mainstream, I think the storage and transportation issues will be minimized out with engineering. CNG has the same arguements against it compared to diesel and yet I see lots of CNG buses in CA. I still think the biggest limitation on hydrogen is commercial level (enough BTU production to offset gasoline) of production on the cheap. Anyone know the cost to build a gas refinery these days, since we really haven't built a new one since the Carter administration?

[squirrel]

Carter administration? do you mean the Ford administration?

Yet we still manage to refine just as much fuel, with half the number of refineries.

[oldsman496]

If they would change the way they design nuke reactors, i would buy into the tech, but the current designs are just terrible.... I mean why would you store 4 to 5 years worth of fuel on site - within the reactor building? when you have a massive failure you have a MASSIVE failure... duh...... they don't build fireworks factory's that way. They spread it out among many buildings so if one has a problem it is isolated from the others....yep it takes allot more land and expense to do it that way, but its loads safer.

And who designs a machine that will blow up if it loses power... I mean really?

[OHC 6 Sprint]

... and only 70 years behind the times.

Sucking CO2 out of the air. What a laugh. You can get it for free at any coal fired or fossil-fuel burning power plant.

If you believe everything you read on the internet, here's a company that will gladly separate you from your hard-earned investment dollars.

http://joulefuels.com/

At least someone is willing to state what their bulk costs could be.

It's on the internet!! It must be true!!!!

[SuperBuickGuy]

I'm still very confused. We perform the service of disposal of a toxic waste, and now they want to remake our efforts into more toxic waste

[TheSilverBuick]

If they would change the way they design nuke reactors, i would buy into the tech, but the current designs are just terrible.... I mean why would you store 4 to 5 years worth of fuel on site - within the reactor building? when you have a massive failure you have a MASSIVE failure... duh...... they don't build fireworks factory's that way. They spread it out among many buildings so if one has a problem it is isolated from the others....yep it takes allot more land and expense to do it that way, but its loads safer.

And who designs a machine that will blow up if it loses power... I mean really?

Huh? We haven't built a new nuke plant in forever. Our stupid energy policies keep us from recycling and refining nuclear fuel and from long term storage, so we can only blame the guberment on that one. Most countries recycle and reprocess fuel. Modern designs (mind you Fukushima was over 40 years old) use passive safety systems to separate and cool the fuel in the event of run away fission. Basically let infallible gravity do the work rather than diesel power pumps and water tanks. You're talking technology 30 years ago, the last time we built one of these things. The French and Japanese have way better designs now.

[oldsman496]

If you can't seperate the Gov't vs private industry 'sides' of this argument, what diference would it make where the fault lies...? The point is our exsisting and planned plants all include very large storage areas.......not dispersed properly.... of course this IMO...just sayin'

and this is interesting reading........ Govt is essential to funding most anything this expensive nowadays, unfortunately.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-04-13/usec-centrifuges-loan-guarantees/54560118/1

and how about putting electrical turbines inside your water mains?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210080420.htm

[Orange65]

If they would change the way they design nuke reactors, i would buy into the tech, but the current designs are just terrible.... I mean why would you store 4 to 5 years worth of fuel on site - within the reactor building? when you have a massive failure you have a MASSIVE failure... duh...... they don't build fireworks factory's that way. They spread it out among many buildings so if one has a problem it is isolated from the others....yep it takes allot more land and expense to do it that way, but its loads safer.

And who designs a machine that will blow up if it loses power... I mean really?

Currently, there are two designs of nuclear reactor used in the US. Both are considered fail safe and flood the core in case of a problem. I am not sure that the Japanese use the same design.

As for storage of spent fuel rods. Typically they are stored on site but in another building in water for a certain amount of time. After they have cooled enough, they are transferred into concrete "pillars" (not the best name but the best I could think of) to decay further. These are also kept on site but not in the same building. The reason that nuclear waste is stored on site is because the government cannot decide on a storage facility. Look up Yucca Mountain- our multiyear failed attempt at a storage facility that was closed prior to opening after many years of work and study- it was closed due to congressional pressure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

As for current work on new nuclear sites- building a new reactor takes years of government approvals along with lots of studies. It is easier for current reactors to be expanded. The only expansion I am aware of in the US going on now is at Plant Vogtle in southern Georgia. It is owned by the Southern Company.

I took a class on energy generation a couple of years ago. I think the entire engineering staff of Southern company presented to us at one time or another.

[oldsman496]

a number of sites have been approved for new construction of nuke plants from both sides of the political isle, but the damn politicians just keep screwing around and don't actually fund the projects... they say they will, but never cut the damn check....kinda like they are talkin' out of both side of thier face or sumthin' eh?

read this.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-04-13/usec-centrifuges-loan-guarantees/54560118/1

and yeah... i've read lots about Yucca.

[TheSilverBuick]

I've been to and toured Yucca Mountain. I have the tour pamphlet downstairs somewhere. The trouble with it is the same as will be anywhere, you simply cannot predict 10,000+ years into the future. The water table is currently hundreds of feet below the existing storage repository, which is good. However they want to say it has been that low for an extremely long time and there is evidence showing it hasn't always been that deep, and possibly as recently as 2,000 to 5,000 years ago hot springs in the vicinity. Conversely if weather patterns shift it could very well raise the water table substantially. The area was probably underwater at the end of the last ice age. But as I said, it's going to be the same story anywhere you look.

Recycling, re-processing and expanding use of nuclear fuel could be done with minimal waste for a very long time, especially if we go to an electrically based/supported transportation system.

[squirrel]

There is lots of PV solar stuff going in all over the southwest....

There are lots of ways to make electricity, and it makes sense to use it to commute. Assuming we keep going in this direction, and there are a few electric cars in full scale production now, we are probably going to have reasonably priced gasoline around for a long, long time. It's nice to develop the alternatives, but don't think that any one of them is going to monopolize transportation in the future.