Power Generation

Solar panels on the poles

2013-02-13T08:10:00.000-08:00

Solar panels in Antarctica

Antarctica would be a natural choice to place a large amount of solar panels. With lots of sunlight, cool temperatures, little alterations in weather (Antarctica is technically a desert due to the low precipitation), and the fact it remains largely unpopulated with lots of open space, it is largely an ideal place to place solar panels to provide power for the coming years.

The advantage from Antarctica primarily comes from the cold temperatures, open space, and gratuitous amounts of sunlight (for part of the year). At colder temperatures, semi conductors, and photovoltaic cells, usually become more efficient, and capable of absorbing more sunlight (and as well, most batteries discharge slower or have longer lives). This allows the solar panels to absorb significantly more sunlight without requiring more expensive or capable materials; in Antarctica, it would be possible to cool down the satellites to near cryogenic temperatures without the need of external cooling devices. This in turn could allow the solar panels to be significantly more efficient.

Solar panels are also more dependent on the temperature of the solar panels than the air. While the air temperature may be somewhere along the lines of 25 degrees Celsius, theoretically the solar panel will be closer to 45 degrees Celsius, due to it's nature of absorbing sunlight and radiation more readily and becoming hotter (for the same reason something metal on a hot summer day, might be hotter than the ground or air). While calls to absorb this thermal energy are present (despite the expense and difficulty of it), if the ambient temperature was even colder the temperature of the solar panel itself could be reduced even more. This could in turn even further increase the operating temperature of the solar panels substantially.

It is also possible to design solar panels that would work at cold temperature specifically. If designed to work at these temperatures, the solar panels could theoretically be optimized for operation, rather than traditional, and less heat sensitive solar cells. Another concept would be to attach a heat sink to the solar cells, such as iron, and have them connect with the ice directly, rather than be dissipated through the air. This might absorb the thermal energy faster, and therefore cool the solar panels off faster (say, being in contact with the ice, or a thermally conductive material close to the ice) which might cool them off, even more.

Solar concentrators, that is magnifying glasses focusing on small solar cells (having really small, really efficient solar cells, that are incredibly expensive but with the sun focused on them), might become more viable if the temperatures are lower, since the high magnification of sunlight could easily heat up more sensitive solar cells, which could be eliminated if in ambient cold temperatures .

Aqua Ponics Gardening and Artificial Meat

2012-08-30T23:00:00.003-07:00

Aqua Ponics Gardening and Artificial Meat

Black Hole Generators

2012-08-30T22:56:00.001-07:00

Black Hole Generators

Overview

2012-08-30T21:49:00.006-07:00

Looking over
In any case, Solar panels are the way of the future for any society that wishes for long term sustainable power. While thorium can provide power for hundreds of thousands of years, the only foreseeable replacement to all of our energy needs over the next few million years and their current predicted increase rate would be solar panels, as even if our energy demands sky rocket to 10 times our desired amount in the next few hundred or so years, the earth is bathed in enough sunlight to easily power over 6000 times our current worlds energy demand, including various inefficient expenditures, such as our current processes in internal combustion engines which wastes a lot of the potential energy in gasoline used for cars. And while these power sources may run out in 10-100’s of thousands of years (even fusion only lasting a foreseeable few million) based on resource constraints, solar panels would provide virtually fuel-less energy, and should provide power as long as the sun is around, meaning that it is the only true long term solution to our energy demands over the next few million, or billion years.

We shouldn’t remove or ignore thorium or other fuels, as they can be useful in long-term traveling situations, such as with space travel, in terraforming planets, in any endeavor that may require spike energy (such as theoretically making nano-technology for instance, although most of the process are chemicals and the energy cost should be rather low) and in case there is bad weather that may blot out the sun for any considerable amount of time.
In addition, the power would be relatively clean, reducing pollution, and if we switched over to electric in most our aspects (cars, heating etc.) we could find a long term replacement for all energy demands and reduce pollution and problems associated with gaining power, among other things. This could also potentially make the cost of energy much cheaper which could serve as an advantage in many applications.

And of course power the robots that will be doing everything for us in the future.

Giant Dam in the middle of the Ocean (lol)

2012-08-30T21:49:00.000-07:00

Giant Dam in the middle of the Ocean

Solar Panels

2012-08-30T21:48:00.004-07:00

Solar panels
The Nellis Solar Power Plant is located within Nellis Air Force Base in Clark County, Nevada, on the northeast side of Las Vegas. The Nellis solar energy system will generate in excess of 25 million kilowatt-hours (kW·h) of electricity annually and supply more than 25 percent of the power used at the base. (2011) Occupying 140 acres (57 ha) of land leased from the Air Force at the western edge of the base, this ground-mounted solar system employs an advanced sun tracking system, designed and deployed by SunPower. The system contains approximately 70,000 solar panels, and the peak power generation capacity of the plant is approximately 13 MW AC. This means the ratio of average to peak output, or capacity factor, of this plant is around 22%. The energy generated will support more than 12,000 military and civilians at Nellis who are responsible for Air Force advanced combat training, tactics development and operational testing. Construction began on April 23, 2007, and operation of the first 5 MW began on October 12, 2007.

A relatively nice example of the use of photovoltaic solar panels for the production of electricity. A hectacre is .01 kilometers. Currently, approximately 57 are used to generate the “excess” of 25 annual million kilowatt hours, which is of only 22% of the theoretical potential. A square kilometer is roughly .386 miles, or .4 the size of a mile. 57 hectacres is approximately .22 (.22002) of a square mile. So, every 1.1 miles of equivalent solar fields would produce approximately 125 million kilowatt hours per year, or every 9.9 miles would produce 1.125 billion. You could even say that 10 square miles will produce that amount, for ease of calculation. The solar array is said to reduce electricity costs at the base to almost 1 million dollars a year.

However, the entire array costs nearly 100 million dollars to produce, although this may have in large part been as a result of planning and various other manufacturing startup costs (such as building a solar panel production facility) and not necessarily been the material and installation costs.
The United States uses approximately 4,000 Terrawatt hours per year in regards to electricity, so if we assume a solar panel farm equivalent to the capabilities of the Nellis solar farm would produce 125 million kilowatt hours per year for every 1.1 miles, we would probably need at least 35,200 square miles at minimum to power the United States, or approximately 350 x 100 miles of territory covered (if we ignore electrical resistances for wires, which could result in 10-20%, or even 30% inefficiency rating, require even more solar panels). This would mean that the cost of the solar panels required to power the United States could potentially be up to 28.8 trillion dollars. Additionally, problems with the frequent replacement of batteries, weather changes which can completely block the sun, maintenance for solar panels (which do not use glass as it vastly inhibits the amount of energy reaching the silicon below) and issues with a need for increased sunlight levels but better operating levels in the cold (so for instance, even though on a summer day a solar panel may receive up to 50% more light, due to heat constraints it’s efficiency may be reduced by up to 12.5-25% if it’s over 100 degrees) make it a difficult energy source to apply. On top of all this, the amount of land available for potential solar panel use is rather low, and even filling every nook and cranny of the United States would still result in difficult power generation, as the weather would limit its production in many areas where open land is available.

Luckily, there exists a place that solves the majority of these problems; Antarctica. Antarctica receives an enormous amount of sunlight, so much so that in the summer sunburns are considered a significant health issue even by minor exposure and through the heavy clothing required to exist in the environment without freezing. This is in large part attributed to the “ozone hole” over Antarctica, which fails to prevent an enormous amount of sunlight from entering the area. Antarctica is considered a desert, and requires minimal weather maintenance as the rainfall and changes in weather are rather low. The weather is on average below 0 degrees Fahrenheit, which is great for semiconductors, and is lowest near the center of Antarctica, where the solar panels would most likely be built, due to constraints with the ice on the coast frequently changing size and shape. In addition, it shines summer for almost 6 months straight with no or little dark period, meaning that the day and night issues with batteries, sun tracking devices, and a time without substantial power generation can mostly be eliminated. This can drastically reduce the cost of solar panels, as the amount of sunlight generated and absorbed would be greatly increased, due to the higher efficiency of solar panels in lower temperatures (well over 25%) increased sunlight, reduced need for batteries and potentially the ability to simply place the solar panels on the ground without the need for a large or daily used raised platform to track or follow the sun (at the cost of potentially negligible decreased efficiency), allowing for more surface area to be covered and less complicated devices to be used to absorb the sunlight. As well, the land is large and unused, and mostly unoccupied, as it’s a terrible environment to live in and extremely cold; the population is approximately 4000-5000 on any given year. Obvious problems include the installation, as it would require workers to be within the hazardous environment, but seeing as how individuals are currently capable of living there this shouldn’t be too much of a problem. As well, the transportation mechanism of the power could be in question given the potentially long range to its desired location; although, we have more than enough wire in the golden gate bridge to stretch around the world three times over, so we should have enough cables in the world to reach any mainland area we desire. The primary issue concerned with Solar panels seems to be the levels of sunlight, storage of energy, and surface area, and Antarctica seems to have these problems covered. One wouldn’t require large batteries or even potentially the advanced sun tracking capabilities of normal solar panels, which could reduce the cost significantly (and also reduce the amount of space needed, as the surface area could potentially be increased).

In any case, if we simply assume the potential cost of a solar panel array that could produce the equivalent of 1 watt a second (31,536,000 watts a year) to be around the standard market value of 1-2 dollars (and ignore the cost of maintenance and other such things such as replacement costs, which may not be as a big a problem in Antarctica), then it would only, at most, be a few billion dollar down payments for power for 20-30 years’ worth of energy. Alternatively, we could assume the assumed price for solar panels when compared to coal, which even at rather high estimates would only be about twice the price of coal, and could theoretically be a lot cheaper.

The primary problem is that, in order to replace the world’s power supply completely, one would need to either be able to build solar panels on the opposite end of the south pole (which, the north pole tends to change size and melt frequently, as well as not possess the same advantages of a decreased ozone layer as the South Pole) or again, have large enough batteries to store the power for half of the year.

Of course, if we throw out all the other costs for start up costs in the Nellis air force base and instead focus on what it would take to mass produce these solar panels the figure drops from that staggering 28 trillion to a much lower number in any case.

Recent advancements in nanotechnology may have made electrical power storage feasible, however. Capacitors possess several advantages over batteries; they generally degrade slower, in millions of cycles rather than thousands, can be charged and discharged relatively quickly when compared to batteries, as fast as the power source allows (10 minute charge for car batteries instead of 8 hours, for instance) and don’t experience many problems or burn out when charged or discharged too quickly; they also have a relatively high efficiency and low cost per cycle when compared to batteries. The primary drawback however, is that most capacitors are relatively weak when compared to batteries; generally speaking, even the most powerful commercially available supercapacitors are around 30-50 times weaker than lithium ion in terms of power storage, and many capacitors can be thousands of times weaker. Additionally, they have a much higher discharge rate than batteries, and have difficulty storing a charge for an extended period of time. While lithium ion has roughly an 8% discharge rate per month at room temperature, capacitors are usually almost completely depleted of electricity by then, making them relatively bad for long term storage (although, if the electricity is stored at relatively low levels, their discharge rate can be much lower, as the discharge rate for a capacitor decreases exponentially based on what percentage the maximum storage capacitance for a capacitor is filled).

Luckily, nano-capacitors have shed light on how to solve some of these problems. By simply being extremely powerful and making a capacitor that is capable of storing electrons down to the smallest level possible, we can compensate for various inefficiencies through raw volume and power and solve most of our problems. In addition, due to the design, it’s possible that the electricity can be stored longer, or at least in such amounts that 1-10% of it’s maximum storage capacity can be stored for periods of time hopefully equal if not greater to lithium ion.

Hopefully, they will also possess a larger long term storage capacity as well. Even if they are only capable of storing roughly 1% of their maximum storage capacity for any considerable period of time with a discharge rate lower than or equal to lithium ion, they should be capable of storing 10’s of times the amount of energy of lithium ion with little difficulty as pseudo-batteries of roughly the same size, if not also being potentially much lighter weight and cheaper to produce. An electric car with say, 5 times the storage capacity of current batteries could solve most the problems associated with electric cars in the first place, which mostly equates to raw energy. A car that is capable of traveling say, 200 miles with electricity on a single charge, falls short of the desired 300 mile range (20 mpg and a 15 gallon tank) many drivers would like a car to possess. If said electric car could store, say, 5 times this amount, it would be capable of a 1000 mile drive in a single charge, and would only theoretically take another 10-30 minutes to charge with nano-capacitors. With the current abilities of nano-capacitors, 10’s of times this amount, say 20-30 times greater than what current batteries can provide, could result in cars that could drive from LA to New York, or approximately 3000 miles and back, on a single charge. This would eliminate the fear of a car running out of power, and also potentially significantly reduce their required charge amounts, potentially reducing the amount of charging stations required. The obvious ability to increase the storage capacity for electricity is apparent, as batteries that could potentially power flashlights or cell phones for thousands of hours would be nice to have, and for solar power could mean eliminating a lot of their problems.

Due to recent advancements in Graphene and Bucky Paper, the capabilities of nano-capacitors and other such devices are looking bright. Inches, not micrograms or micrometers, have been made of said materials, Graphene which seems to possess the strongest tensile strength of any material in existence at the moment and Bucky Paper is which is said to be as hard as diamonds and 200 times stronger than steel at 1/10th the weight, have been made, in inches. Brick sized nano-capacitors, not of the same strength as they could potentially be in the future but that represent potential possibilities (weaker versions, that are still considered to be around equal to lithium ion) give hope that one day their full potential of being hundreds of times better than current batteries, and being in mass production, may be possible. Personally, I predict that in 10-20 years such batteries will not only be available, but ready for mass production and probably already in large use. Even if said battery would be 10 times smaller than lithium ion, it could potentially provide several times more power, decreasing the cost; and due a life time of several thousand years instead of only several years, the long term cost for said batteries could decrease drastically, obviously increasing their use even if they were made in smaller amounts at the same prices (although due to material construction and various other factors, they should theoretically be cheaper).

Due to the raw strength of such materials as well, their abilities to withstand damage (melting point of roughly 6000 degrees and potentially 10’s of times stronger than steel) should increase their longevity and practical applications in situations of extreme temperatures and situations, making them more useful in a wide range of applications. Coupled with nano-wires that could potentially be as efficient as super conductors at low temperatures at room temperature, the efficiency of said batteries may increase even more.

Fusion

2012-08-30T21:47:00.001-07:00

Fusion
Fusion seems to always be 50 years in the future. While potentially an awesome fuel source, its requirements for such awesome energy production are rather high, and it is dependent on extremely powerful radiation and heat absorbent or resistant materials, as well the thermal conductivity of any material that would attempt to transport it’s energy over to a steam turbine (or other heat based energy production process). Additionally, current fusion models require large amounts of Tritium and Deuterium, which are both rather rare isotopes of Hydrogen and take quite a bit of energy to produce reactor grade isotopes (for instance, only approximately 225 kg (500 lb) of tritium have been produced in the United States sense 1956, according to the United States Department of Energy, and has only been produced in small amounts despite its frequent use in Exit signs and Watches as a product that glows and provides luminescence) and due to its increased presence in salt water, reasonable attainment of such fuels would also include the need for the desalination of water, which is also energy costly.

On top of all this, the ability to absorb said energy is rather low given it’s awesome, huge, and destructive nature, and it’s massive temperature levels which provide the bulk of its energy (as a result of neutron radiation, which is essentially heavier than a proton but traveling almost as fast as the speed of light, which makes it extremely dangerous) which would be difficult to transport by some medium over to power a steam turbine, as it can reach a few million degrees in temperature, essentially destroying or melting it’s mode of transportation. After being heated to a million degrees, virtually every material known to man would be in a plasma state; even if the power is theoretically capable of being produced, reasonably absorbing said energy may be difficult or near impossible to do.

Still, modern and post-modern nano-technology offers up a way to transport large amounts of heat and serve as a heat sink, as materials with enormous strength, materials potentially 500 times stronger than steel and harder than diamond, and potentially as thermally conductive as wires are for electricity, could increase the efficiency and allow the continued deliverance of thermal energy to various powering sites, allowing for the continued and reliable transportation of the energy without frequent costly energy stops or needs to replacement degraded equipment, which can be easily destroyed by neutron radiation.

Essentially, one requires extremely powerful extensively engineered nano-structures before the powers of fusion can be contained or exploited for reasonable energy production, and even still the processes required for modern fusion reactors would still require an enormous amount of energy to produce (as required by the desalination of water and near 99% breed of Deuterium, which only exists only in about 0.0156% concentrations in the Earth’s Oceans).
Still, Fusion power can provide a massive amount of energy in terms of size, and could be good for things such as space travel, powering a starting planet or it’s terraforming process, or even large boats for transporting cargo.

Helium 3

2012-08-30T21:46:00.001-07:00

Helium 3
Helium-3 is also an extremely powerful fuel source. It is non-radioactive and therefore relatively safe, and potentially 1000 times more powerful than uranium. Only approximately 4 tons are required to power the Entire World’s energy supply, and it can potentially be used in modern nuclear reactors, making the startup costs relatively cheap. The primary problem associated with Helium-3 is availability.

Very little Helium-3 is found in the Earth’s crust, and much of it is thought to be in the Earth’s Mantle or on the moon. In its highest concentration, on the Moon’s surface, it is thought to be in abundance anywhere around 1-50 parts per billion. This means that every 20 million to billion pounds of rocks recovered from the moon may result in in 1 pound of Helium-3. If we multiplied that number by 2000, or 20 billion to 2 trillion pounds of rocks, we may be able to get 1 ton off the surface of the moon. If we multiplied that by another thousand, or anywhere from 20 trillion to 2 quadrillion pounds of rock, we may be able to get 1000 tons of Helium-3, or enough to power the earth for about 250 years, 500 if we only replace particular fuel supplies.

While a clean, powerful, and potentially economical fuel source, it’s availability and difficult forms of obtainment (thousands of space ships to the moon) limits it’s availability as a cheap, steady, or reliable fuel source until frequent trips to the moon are made possible, as are mining and the carrying of large loads in space (although this may be possible with particular rocket designs).
While an awesome fuel source, it is best reserved for projects that require a small amount of space and weight, such as large naval vessels or space ships, which require a smaller fuel source due to the requirement of self-locomotion, and obviously increased power in terms of size.

If any considerable amounts are mined from the moon it may be possible to power the entire world; just as Helium-3 can be easily transitioned to current Uranium reactors, in theory it should also be viable for fusion in the future, making the fuel source logistically simple, although these projects are still highly experimental.

Thorium

2012-08-27T07:34:00.003-07:00

Thorium in particular, sheds light on a method to cheaply produce large amounts of energy. Thorium is approximately 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, 200 times more powerful, has no chance of a meltdown, is only mildly radioactive, and can clean up nuclear waste. By itself, with current levels of efficiency in thorium reactors, it is approximately 600 million times more powerful than coal (in terms of mass), uranium being approximately 3 million times more powerful than coal, and over 200 times more power than uranium.

Originally, it was believed that Uranium was vastly more abundant than thorium in nature, mostly because this is true. However, only a certain percentage of uranium, approximately .7204%, is useful in fissionable reactions for electricity production. In nature, uranium is found predominantly as uranium-238 (99.2742%) and uranium-235 (0.7204%). Thorium on the other hand, is found in almost 100% concentration of Thorium 232, which does not require enrichment processes and is significantly safer to use and distribute. Due to this, the amount of naturally occurring, useable, fissionable Uranium is actually a full two magnitudes lower than the total amount of Uranium that exists and therefore, 3-4 times less abundant than useful Thorium.

Thorium is approximately 200-300 times more efficient than Uranium. Uranium is approximately 3 million times more powerful than coal. Approximately 6.75 Billion tons of coal are used each year to power the World’s electricity supply. If we assume the efficiency of coal and uranium power plants are the same, as they both use steam turbines, we get that approximately 2250 tons of uranium could be used to power the entire world’s coal supply for a year (which is approximately half of all the electricity produced), or roughly double that to replace all electricity. Theoretically, only 1/200th of this is required of thorium per year to produce the same amount of electricity, so roughly 11.25 tons or 22.5 tons of Thorium would be required per year to provide for all the electricity provided by coal, or double that for the entire world, respectively. Even if we assume large inefficiencies for whatever reasons (which are hopefully mitigated by the amount of energy produced with coal per year compensating for the efficiency, even though Thorium could theoretically be better), at a third, fifth, or even a tenth this amount the raw power of thorium would easily be enough to compensate. Based on the estimates OECD/NEA geographical survey, approximately 400,000-440,000 tons of Thorium exists in the United States alone. Based on these figures, it would be possible to power the entire world, for the Thorium present in the United States, for approximately 22,000 to 44,000 years, respectively, if we replaced coal or the entire world’s Electricity supply. The predictions for the entire World’s Thorium reserve varies greatly, even within the same study (Between 1.3-2.6 million tons), however, in the United States it is at a fairly stable 400-440,000 ton estimate, and based even on the minimum conservative estimate the World’s Thorium supply is theoretically enough thorium to power the world for 67-135,000 years. To power the United States alone (the user of approximately 15-20% of the entire world’s electricity supply) we would only need approximately 4 tons of Thorium annually at its current power usage, and have enough power to power the United States coal supply for approximately 220-286,000 years. Additionally, the money produced from the electricity could be heavily taxed and provide a form of revenue for both the United States and its workers, and potentially reduce the cost of not only daily electrical expenses, but also electrical costs for business drastically. Even if we assume massive or unnoticed inefficiencies in its production, in the order of a magnitude, or 10 times than originally predicted (making it only 20 times more powerful than Uranium, in practice) it’s still enough power to power the entire world and the United States for thousands of years, and two magnitudes lower (100 times less efficient) is enough to power the Entire world for Hundreds of years, and still power the U.S. for thousands, just based on the estimates of Thorium in the United States alone. The United States recovered 988 Tons of thorium, presumably still held in storage, between 1955-1958, which would theoretically be enough to power the U.S. for 250-365 years alone, at relatively little to no cost, sense the fuel was provided by the U.S. and was already obtained, even as a result of a single clean up incident.

It is an extremely powerful and available fuel source that most likely should be used and adapted quickly, which through sheer power and availability in nature, could provide cheap, stable, voluminous and clean of energy for nearly everyone for thousands of years.

Thorium is also relatively safe, especially when compared to Uranium. Thorium possesses no capacity for a melt down, as in its natural state it is not fissionable, and therefore does not represent a significant threat for a catastrophic melt down. Due to the thorium energy producing process, it is possible to produce only small amounts of its potentially dangerous nuclear waste which, can be nearly completely eliminated through the energy production process and is only produced in small amounts. Additionally, Thorium can be used to clean up nuclear waste, meaning that our stockpiles of nuclear waste could potentially be eliminated and actually put to good use. While its energy producing process it can produce a substantial amount of radiation, it is nothing more than what typical radiation shielding can prevent and absorb, and the radiation levels will immediately drop if the reactor failed, due to the inherent process required to extract the thorium electricity (it must be hot in order to operate, and shutting the operation down cools it down). In addition, Thorium is only mildly radioactive even in its natural state, and has a half-life longer than or as long as the predicted life of the Universe, at 14 billion years. In any case, Thorium produces Alpha Particles which are virtually incapable of getting through the skin, and rarely present a significant threat unless consumed or inhaled. Thorium dioxide (ThO2) and thorium nitrate (Th(NO3)4) are often used in mantles of portable gas lights, including natural gas lamps, oil lamps and camping lights. These mantles glow with an intense white light (unrelated to radioactivity) when heated in a gas flame, and its color can be shifted to yellow by addition of cerium.

Thorium dioxide can be a material for heat-resistant ceramics, and is used more or less for high-temperature laboratory crucibles. When added to glass, it helps increase refractive index and decrease dispersion. Such glass finds application in high-quality lenses for cameras and scientific instruments. The radiation from these lenses can self-darken (yellow) them over a period of years and degrade film, but the health risks are considered minimal (if present). Yellowed lenses can potentially be restored to their original colorless state with lengthy exposure to intense UV light.

Essentially, natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the alpha radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as with a gas mantle, is considered safe. Exposure to an aerosol of thorium can lead to increased risk of cancers to the internal organs as they can be penetrated by alpha radiation; Exposure to thorium internally can lead to an increased risk of liver diseases, and it is best to avoid it’s consumption or internal exposure, but is otherwise relatively safe (the over-consumption of copper, Nickel, and tungsten or really any metal can lead to disastrous effects in any case).
Luckily, Thorium is a relatively safe compound, and the Installation of a Thorium reactor close to a populated area presents no specific or significant risk to the surrounding populace, at least no more than most fuel sources, despite the fact that due to raw power only a few Thorium reactors would need to be made and thus could be rather far away from society in more strategic locations, in any case.

Thorium can be used to clean up nuclear waste in various methods, which can make the cleanup job in nuclear reactors significantly cheaper and easier, especially when compared to current methods, which essentially uses clay. This can help eliminate nuclear waste, potentially even from its own cycle.

The use of Thorium
Original estimates put Uranium at much higher naturally occurring rates than Thorium, which was proven to mostly be false in terms of useable, fissionable Uranium for use in generating electricity. Uranium was capable of producing easily useable weapons grade uranium and plutonium, for use in Atom Bombs, which allowed it to serve as a multi-purpose role in the market and produce greater profits. Additionally, many aspects of Thorium were mostly unknown and it hasn’t been until recently that ground breaking new processes and the understanding of the potential of Thorium has come to light, allowing us to realize what a powerful and wonderful fuel source it would be.
Because Atom Bombs are no longer required to be in mass production, and we know better, there is really very little stopping the use of Thorium. The true concerns expressed are the initial startup costs, which can be rather high, as building new reactors, gathering the Thorium, hiring nuclear physicists and establishing reactor complexes can be relatively difficult to do, and presents a great deal of cost for a lengthy period with little electricity production. It is simply more efficient (or easier) for current electric companies to continue what they are doing instead of attempting to create a new method of creating electricity.

In addition, while mining Thorium from mozanite sands would be relatively expensive (but still roughly half the price of coal given the current mining costs), even given the low tonnage required for power, a large amount of thorium exists in specifically specified areas in the United States to keep it from leaking out in large amounts into groundwater, despite the fact that there is three times as much thorium in the world than tin and almost equal amounts to lead, most of which is naturally present in most soil. Due to our heavy concentration of thorium after removing it from various metals and soil types as an impurity and storing it properly so that large amounts do not end up in any one space, a large amount of Thorium already exists inside the United States and is relatively available. If this was tapped into, rather than trying to find more thorium in any large amounts, the price of thorium could be relatively non-existent and a major problem associated with it would be eliminated.

If the startup costs for Thorium reactors were subsidized or at least some Thorium was provided, then the production of cheap electricity for the American or World Populace could be very profitable; additionally, while the startup costs for a thorium reactor in terms of electricity can be rather high, the energy produced by a Thorium reactor could serve as a cheap method for powering a second and a third reactor, meaning that the stable and continued generation of Thorium reactors would be relatively cheap to do. In the long term, thorium would serve as a cheaper replacement for current fuel sources, and is perfectly viable if we are able to look past the short term and potentially receive government grants for producing thorium based electricity.

Additionally, due it’s relative levels of safety, it geographical location and placement could be closer to the using populous and the efficiency of the transportation of energy could be increased by the shorter required proximity to the people it intends to provide power for, making it a practical power source that is substantially more powerful than uranium. Thorium can easily provide abundant, cheap, stable, and clean energy for millions, if not all Americans, and potentially the entire World. Given the U.S.’s current reserves from now, even from single isolated incidents, the price of thorium, as fuel, may be practically free.

As well, due to the difficulty in turning thorium into atomic weapons, it could be considerably easier to distribute on a global scale without having to worry about the impacts of potential nuclear weapons generation.

Gasoline for Electricity Generation

2012-08-27T07:34:00.001-07:00

Gasoline for Electricity Generation
Gasoline is an incredibly powerful fuel source, possessing around 21.5 million joules per pound, compared to coal at around 11 million joules. It’s currently used in automobiles, planes, and other vehicles due to its raw power and high energy density. However, a lot of gasoline is currently wasted; the efficiency of many automobiles is lacking as much of the gasoline is wasted generating heat. A typical internal combustion engine only possesses about 26% thermal efficiency and only about 20% mechanical efficiency.

Comparatively, steam turbines generally have around 35-40% efficiency, and are capable of getting around 90% fuel efficiency, meaning that if gasoline was burned to power specially designed steam turbines they could easily be around 3-4 times more efficient in terms of energy production, and potentially up to 4.5 times more efficient, than standard combustion engines. If this energy was stored as electricity, this means that the energy, over the power grid and through cars, could easily be 3 times more efficient when used in vehicles after the energy is generated with multi-million dollar steam turbines rather than few thousand dollar engines. This would mean that we would not only get three times as much energy from gasoline as we do now, but that the cost of gasoline would essentially drop by 1/3 its current amount, given our reduced need for it. If the energy was generated in a more efficient machine before being used in vehicles one could easily reduce the price of locomotion drastically as well as reduce their polluting emissions.

Algae could be used to capture the exhaust from the steam turbines to prevent it from going into the atmosphere, and then use that algae to produce ethanol. As of now the standard 5-10% ethanol gasoline fuel blend currently used in most unleaded standard gasoline seems to possess the equivalent fuel efficiency of gasoline, despite ethanol being around 1/3 weaker than gasoline. This means that burning ethanol in addition to gasoline in the right concentration seems to keep its power level at the same level as straight gasoline, and is basically like adding 10% free fuel to the mixture simply by reusing previously discarded waste products.

It would also make self-reliance on energy a much more feasible task. The United States in 2004 imported nearly 65% of its oil from other countries, and this was considered the peak import year for the 2000 onward period (foreign oil usage is expected to drop to 54% by 2030). If the efficiency of the United States’ use of oil was increased by just 3 times its current amount, all the gasoline used in the United States could come from local sources. This means that a dependency on foreign imported oil, some of this oil that could potentially come from questionable sources, would be eliminated and the United States’ energy supply needed for daily expenses and even potentially economic prowess could be entirely in its own hands.

The price of practically everything could fall (given the current transport system that involves using gasoline), pollution could be virtually eliminated and various Countries’ dependence on foreign oil could be removed, allowing them to prosper without the hands of countries’ whose democratic values may not be the same as theirs.

While we would still be reliant on gasoline, the said process would create a lot less pollution and would provide vastly more energy for no foreseeable increase in cost in regards to fuel consumption, being a good option for all of the United States’ and other affiliated countries’ energy needs.

While Carbon Fiber is expensive, the addition of Thorium or reduced energy costs, at least enough to lower carbon fiber from 15-16 dollars per pound to 5 dollars per pound, being slightly less than 1/5th the density of of steel (1.5 grams per cubic centimeter compared to 7.85), would put carbon fiber unit to unit about as expensive as steel, making it more feasible for production while keeping the same level of safety. This could be possible with improved efficiency of electricity production, and if the electric cars were lighter weight, they could not only travel further (eliminating range anxiety) but the life of the engine and battery could be lengthened. Potential replacements to lithium include Potassium ion and lithium titanate both of which have longer lives than lithium ion and have potential advantages and disadvantages, namely potassium ion being cheap and lithium titanate being able to recharge faster.