Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Alternative Energy Sources?

176K views 2K replies 48 participants last post by  MacDoc 
#1 · (Edited)
With some reservations (because some idiot will try to open this thing with a blue wrench or try to turn it into a bomb...) this is fairly attractive.

Local Mini Nuclear Reactors to Power US Homes within 5 Years

Powered by low-enriched uranium fuel, each Hyperion Power Module will produce enough clean, safe and environmentally friendly energy to reliably power 20,000 standard American homes for 10cents per kilowatt/hr. Linked together they have the capacity to power much larger enterprises.
Link to Hyperion.

edit: Link to Hyperion added
 
#5 ·
I remember back in the 60s my Physics prof saying that waste was the biggest issue with nuclear power and that was something the techs should be able to solve in a very few years. We are still waiting. Carbon dioxide is not the only thing that makes a power source dirty. This is still enriched uranium and waste will still be a major issue. Trading relatively harmless CO2 for poison is not a real solution.
 
#6 ·
Did you bother to read the story?

"To add to their eco credentials, each module will produce a mere softball-sized amount of recyclable waste every five years and will release nothing in the way of greenhouse gas emissions, unlike 'traditional' fossil fuels."
 
#39 ·
It's not that cut and dry, unfortunately SINC. While the technology already exists to reintroduce matter deep into the ground via disposal wells, WHAT goes into them is carefully monitored for contaminants and toxicity. These subterranean zones travel for miles and small cracks and fissures allow disposal water to widely disperse. That's how the oil and gas got IN there in the first place.

What is injected deep into one well can show up in someone's drinking water miles and miles away if the proper precautions are not taken or for whatever reason fail.

Having endured my fair share of grillings/beatings at regulatory hearings to get mere oil & gas projects approved, I can't even fathom the day when we would get approval to inject highly radioactive material into the ground. If it was approved, it would likely have so many conditions burdening it, it still may not be able to actually fly.
 
#8 ·
There are also good technologies for firing projectiles loaded with nuclear waste into space (e.g. rail guns and light gas guns).

While the attitude of "we'll just throw this stuff away" is what got us in trouble ecologically in the first place, you really can't pollute space, and if you pick a trajectory intelligently, you can be sure the stuff you get rid of this way will never come back.

But all that would be moot if we could get decent fusion reactors working. Properly controlled fusion generates helium as a waste product (or any other element you want... but for anything heavier than iron you have to put energy into the system).

With controlled fusion, our only remaining problem (apart from overpopulation, which is fundamentally the root cause of almost all problems) would be heat pollution.

Cheers
 
#10 ·
SINC, the problem is most people don't have a clue what our current energy needs entail, never mind the future. If we're going to wean ourselves off fossil fuels then ALL forms of alternate energy must be on the table.

We in Canada don't live in a stable climate zone. Things like wind and solar cannot be relied upon to meet our needs in total. They are certainly part of the package but not the whole story.

This isn't simply about CO2 emissions, it's about being self reliant and not beholden to the whims of OPEC and oil speculators.
 
#11 ·
With some reservations (because some idiot will try to open this thing with a blue wrench or try to turn it into a bomb...) this is fairly attractive.

Local Mini Nuclear Reactors to Power US Homes within 5 Years



Link to Hyperion.

edit: Link to Hyperion added
The advantage is that the fuel is in the form of Uranium Carbide - which even if stolen, would be very, very hard to "grind up" in order to enrich it enough for even a dirty bomb. It is one of the most difficult materials known to machine, even with the best diamond based cutters; and has a very high melting temperature, which would make it very difficult to melt down into some kind of machinable form.

Of course, the problem facing Uranium Carbide fuels is the very problem of disposal or reprocessing, which would tax current state of the art technologies; but disposal is the problem that all state of the art reactor designs are facing.
 
#14 ·
A big problem is terrorism. They would most likely have some fairly intense air protection around those bad boys.

Many speculate the reason that one of the 9/11 flights went down in Pennsylvania was because it shot down since the army thought it was heading towards the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. That would have taken out the entire eastern seaboard including southern ontario and the clouds would have taken out of the rest of us in due time...
 
#22 ·
As I plan on building a home in the next few years, I've been doing some research into what new technology has to offer. The plan is to be "off-the-grid" as much as possible and to use as many alternative sources of both energy and construction methodology to reduce consumption and improve efficiency.

One site I found that has a very good overview of what is currently available is the tech inventory at toolbase. Plenty of ways to go.
 
#23 ·
Good news!

Solar at Sea: Chinese Cargo Ships Will Have Solar Sails.

The Australian company, Solar Sailor, has signed a deal with the largest Chinese shipping line COSCO to outfit their tankers with large solar-powered sails controlled by a computer that angles them for maximum wind and solar efficiency and the company claims that the sails will pay for themselves within four years.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Fission is always a problem

Fission always has the problem of long term storage, like 5000 years long term storage.

There will be people who want to bury the waste deep underground, away from populated areas. The problem is that typically, populated areas are at the bottom of water sheds and the "remote" storge areas are at the top. So any leakage poisons the whole watershed for thousands of years.

To get what the Ontario mind set would be, one just has to look at Toronto garbage.

First they wanted to put it in Innisfil, just south of Barrie, not quite out of sight out of mind and adjacent to Lake Simcoe.

When this did not fly, it was send it to the Adam's mine in Kirkland Lake and put it in a 400 foot hole. This is right at the top of the the watersheds feeding both the Ottawa River system going to the St. Lawrence and the Moose River System feeding down to James Bay. Any toxic leakage would have been a catastrophe.

When that didn't fly, well they just shipped it to the states.

What's wrong with Etobicoke, or Scarborough, or even better, North York? ... NIMBY - and Because We Can.

It would be the same with these reactors.

Fusion when possible is the way to go. The holy grail of power production.

What I do like on this proposal is the scale change. It will make OPG shake in their boots. You could actually have independant grids, lack of control, resulting drops in salary..... and on and on.

Renewable is coming. Much of the technology is there and more coming every day. What is lacking in North America is political will. There is a lot of money at stake in not having a well distributed, multiple small scale power source. MY fear is that as Europe embraces renewable and puts money into it, we will be left irrovacably behind as a mere last chance purchaser rather than as a designer, manufacturer and distributor of these products.
 
#27 ·
Interesting take on Obama's plan for an Energy "Quick Fix":


Obama's energy quick fix bound for the slag heap


"And now Al Gore is telling us," Prof. Smil says, "that the United States can completely repower its electricity generation in a single decade ... can produce 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable, carbon-free sources within 10 years." He does the math to show that such a transition would cost more than $4-trillion (U.S.) - and would still fail. It is physically impossible, he says, to do six decades of rebuilding in 10 years. Such romanticism, he says, is delusional: "None of the promises for greatly accelerated energy transitions will be kept."
Also revealing were the stats on coal vs oil usage.
 
#28 ·
While the article makes decent points it ignores the fact that it is only a handful of nations that are the issue - not the entire world.

Bringing undeveloped nations and even most developing nations into the analysis is dishonest.

Sweden is committed to complete carbon neutral by 2025 and their record of achieving goals is clear - leading the world year after year.

Could the US do it??....maybe on a war footing ( which just might be forced on them )...

Can it be done without nuclear?? - a ridiculous idea as Sweden acknowledged by cancelling it's plan to retire nuclear stations. France is along way toward carbon neutral with their nuclear/electric train system and much lower carbon footprint.

Smil is bang on with this...

merely eliminating the most obvious forms of waste from U.S. energy use -- making us as efficient as Europe -- would accomplish the same thing far more cheaply and far more rapidly (with considerable health benefits from reduced pollution, I might add).
Energy at the crossroads | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Efficiency is the low hanging fruit.

Ontario is in a position very similar to Sweden with base load mostly covered by nuclear and hydro.

A Portland Orgeon
Portland near the top in reducing carbon footprint - Portland Business Journal:

type of program to change building codes and eliminate inefficiency ( retrofits etc ) could be undertaken here if the dumbass politicos could actually agree on something. :mad:

There is a ton of economic activity to be generated in doing so.

Monday, September 8, 2008
Report: ‘Green’ investment could add jobs in Oregon
Portland Business Journal

A $100 billion investment in the green economy could mean $1.2 billion and more than 27,000 new jobs for Oregon, according to a report to be released Tuesday.

The report, entitled “Green Recovery — A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy,” was prepared by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the Center for American Progress.

The effort — backed by a variety of interests, including labor unions, think tanks and environmental groups — examines how private and public investments in a transition to clean energy could spark economic growth.

A $100 billion program combining tax credits and loan guarantees for private businesses, along with direct public investment, could create 2 million U.S. jobs over two years, according to the report.

In Oregon alone, it says 27,307 new jobs could result.

The effort has a list of big-name backers. They include John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton and current CEO of the Center for American Progress; Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council; and Leo Gerard, president of United Steelworkers International.
The obvious place for Canada to start is Toronto with the both the light rail plan and retrofitting all the multiple occupancy buildings.
 
#30 ·
The obvious place for Canada to start is Toronto with the both the light rail plan and retrofitting all the multiple occupancy buildings.
Good luck with the retrofitting. ;) Seriously, it's a ugly issue... and you can't sell it as "right thing to do."

Upfront costs are big, no one can guarantee payback periods, incentive programs are scattered and very cumbersome, the options for retrofitting are confusing, organizing large renovations are difficult, tenants get really pissy about living in a building under construction, plus it's often the tenants who have a huge influence on the efficiency of a building.... there's a longstanding joke in this business about tenants keeping the heat turned up on high and then opening the windows.

Believe me, we do a lot a retrofitting, probably more than the average Toronto landlord, and it's a headache.

Institutional investors aren't necessarily in it for the long-term game... a longer than expected payback is not okay. Cheaper to sell than fix it, plus they are frequently too far from the day-to-day to know what can be done.

Single investors may not have the means or knowledge or time to do it.... or even care. Lots of family landlords in Toronto--many are dying off and leaving the buildings to the kids, who neither know what to do with it nor care... we acquired one such building, it had the original 50 year old single pane windows on it. Owner did not care about improving the cashflow, only about having to fork over the money to fix it. Not many people wanted to buy this building because so much work was involved in cleaning it up.

On a more positive note, however.... have you see the Mayor's Tower Renewal plan? A very interesting read. It sets some overall goals for retrofitting multi-unit buildings.
 
#29 ·
Salt solution: Cheap power from the river's mouth

"Salinity power" exploits the chemical differences between salt and fresh water, and this project only hints at the technology's potential: from the mouth of the Ganges to the Mississippi delta, almost every large estuary could produce a constant flow of green electricity, day and night, rain or shine, without damaging sensitive ecosystems or threatening fisheries (see map). One estimate has it that salinity power could eventually become a serious power player, supplying as much as 7 per cent of today's global energy needs.
Very interesting.
 
#33 ·
Some news on producing coal based synthesis gas in Alberta.

Alberta will be the site of a $30-million demonstration project aimed at unlocking the clean energy potential of the province's vast coal reserves.

The province is contributing $8.83 million toward a $30-million underground coal gasification demonstration project that taps into coal seams that are too deep to be mined economically -- and would otherwise sit idle--to produce clean, synthesis gas for power generation.

The demonstration project, with Calgary's Swan Hills Synfuels LP, is the first of its kind in North America and, at roughly 1,400 metres below the surface, the deepest under-ground coal gasification ever conducted in the world.
 
#35 ·
^^^
Not surprising, ever since MacDonnell-Douglas invented the technology in the 70's that allows engines to break off of a jet at any time, which was a similar kind of engineering task mastered by Ford when they designed the explode on command Pinto, and GM with the burst into flames whenever Vega...
 
#36 · (Edited)
" ... I would like to see utiities offering geothermal systems on a predictable interest loan over the long term, and paying them back on the utiity bill. ..."

SaskPower (what you guys would call "~Hydro") offers $25,000 at 6~7% (depending on the term of the loan) for Geothermal Conversions if you currently have electric heat, with payments via your utility bill. They also offer another $25,000 loan to install a "renewable electricity" generating system (solar, wind). You can combine the loans for a total of up to $50,000. Minimum loan is $5,000.

If you are using natural gas (and probably heating oil ... nobody in Sask does), you need to finance it yourself but are eligible for $10K in grants, and government grants are also available for Geotherm if your new home is built to R-2000 standard. In addition to the government aid, SaskPower will kick in a $3,500 grant for any R-2000 compliant home.

Each province decides how they want to organize their home energy grants, but the Feds offer matching grants if your province comes to the plate.

Net Metering projects (you tie into the grid and send excess electricity to the utility) that have a capacity of 100kW or less are eligible for a grant of 35% up to a maximum of $35,000 from SaskPower. Eligible projects can be wind, solar, biomass, heat reclaim, low-impact hydro, or flare gas. SaskPower provides electricity to most of the province, but the cities of Saskatoon and Swift Current own their own utility. All three allow Net Metering systems.

One interesting thing about the SaskPower Net Metering grant is the prominent notation that all grants from all sources cannot exceed 100% of the cost of the project, implying that other money is available.

Large scale wind isn't feasible in Saskatchewan because along with Manitoba it's the North American goose and duck flyway, so small scale wind is the only option here.

As for the small-scale nuclear generator, we won't be seeing these in homes within 5 years even if everything was 100% Go right now ... it takes 15+ years to get past the regulatory hurdles for our current nuclear projects; the factory would take a very long time to go from startup to production, and who knows how long before you could actually install the thing in your house. Around here it takes 2 years to get a plumber.
 
#37 ·
" ......

Net Metering projects (you tie into the grid and send excess electricity to the utility) that have a capacity of 100kW or less are eligible for a grant of 35% up to a maximum of $35,000 from SaskPower. Eligible projects can be wind, solar, biomass, heat reclaim, low-impact hydro, or flare gas. SaskPower provides electricity to most of the province, but the cities of Saskatoon and Swift Current own their own utility. All three allow Net Metering systems.

One interesting thing about the SaskPower Net Metering grant is the prominent notation that all grants from all sources cannot exceed 100% of the cost of the project, implying that other money is available.

Large scale wind isn't feasible in Saskatchewan because along with Manitoba it's the North American goose and duck flyway, so small scale wind is the only option here.
...
Really wish similar regs were in place in AB. Our overall energy use is fairly low. A wind generator 1-2 KWH would largely offset our use, but having to store in batteries and switch back and forth makes it a bad tradeoff.

Other big thing would be to force those privatized energy companies to drop the gouge fees. They discourage energy conservation as the end user sees little or no benefit from reducing use as the gouge fee tends to mask the drop.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top