[TheBigDog]

I would like this thread to be about solutions to power needs. I will begin with two suggestions.

1) I have heard that 30% of the electrical power generated in the US is lost as heat while distributing it through the power grid. If this is true then we should be developing superconducting cables to rebuild the distribution network. This would boost available power without increasing fuel consumption. It would also allow the grid to share power over longer distances without losing efficiency. There are currently several companies developing such cables, but they will not be common until we overcome the need to use supercooled materials. When a company can do that, put your money into it.

2) More nuclear power. But make just a few "super reactors" that supply power for whole sections of the globe. And make them utilize our stockpiles of nuclear waste as fuel. We can process nuclear waste into fuel. the French do it. We don't because it takes the form of weapons grade plutonium in the process. But that should not stop us.

If you developed both technologies you could possibly become a power generator for the world. Sting the superconducting cable around the globe and push power to all that want it. Companies would own distribution rights in local areas and own the maintenance of the distribution network. This would not only reduce our need for coal and oil, but let us provide electricity to other nations cheaper than they could make it for themselves.

Any other ideas?

Bill

[Jay-qu]

yeah well the person that develops room temp superconductors will be a very rich person!

[arkain101]

I like your ambition, this attitude is what we need everywhere.

Nuclear power is a great system. However, I dont know what you can do with the still radio active waste to prevent life mutation and crap like that. Theres probably ways to do it though eh..

As for transportation, I hope to put my designs into reality and solve that problem.

We should be focusing on alot of things.. but money is still 95% of the focus lol.

[Errin OH]

30% is likely a conseritive estimate and sadly the idea of a superconducting cable is not much beyond wishfull thinking (at least with todays tech).

I see two realistic possibilities. 1 short term (20-30 years), 1 long term (next 100y or so).

Short term reduce demand. By reduceing the load requirments, you reduce the losses. Our goverment is real good at telling the big 3 that cars must get XXmpg. Just think, if applance manufactures were told to make all fridges run at 750W vs 1500w or electric dryers use 3500w vs 7000w. We could double in size and not use anymore energy than we do today. Now I in no way think they should limit the amout of power you desire or can afford. But if we went back to a "demand" bill system (billed based on your peak draw), that everyone hated including me, it would encourage conservation, boost alternative development and production.

The long term solution is to redesign the grid. Todays grid was designed around the limited places that one could generate electricty (rivers, lakes, and such). Large xmission lines carried electricity from a plant on a river to the city. Today we have the ability to generate electricty anywhere. Be it a bunch of little sites on a local grid tied together to serve local pop or a new eff grid from a few mega sites (not an add hock system built over the last 100 years).

Personally I think the "many" smaller sites would be better from a loss and relibility stand point. Should one or a few sites fail, no big deal, unlike loosing a mega site and dealing with all the losses sucking power from 000's, 0000's of miles away, you would be pulling it from say 10-50 miles away spread out over many small plants (cells). Even if you don't like the idea of having a small (house size) reactor located close by, which I beleive could be made safe, secure, and reliable, you could locate gas fired generators in areas where the the waste heat could be sold to industry (cogen) thus increasing eff.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Errin OH

30% is likely a conseritive estimate and sadly the idea of a superconducting cable is not much beyond wishfull thinking (at least with todays tech).

We are making progress on the cable.

http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/nex/nex108.html

And it would be a requirement for the super powerplants. Along your idea, how about using retired navy ships with nuclear powerplants as power supplies for cities. The navy could operate them as training grounds for recruits. Already paid for, safe, and available. Just dock them, staff them, and wire them up.

Bill

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

… we should be developing superconducting cables to rebuild the distribution network.

Super conductivity is super-promising, particularly when one considers that it can not only transmit, but potentially store energy with zero loss, enabling generation technologies with long periodic “off” cycles, such as solar.

One difficulty with practical high-power superconducting cables less discussed than their current very low (but rising, as research progresses) operating temperature requirements, is their sensitivity to magnetic interference, including those induced by their own current. A high power superconductor not only must be insulated thermally, but must be carefully placed to avoid magnetic induction. Even something as simple as a small-radius bend of a cable can cause the superconducting effect to fail.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

… how about using retired navy ships with nuclear powerplants as power supplies for cities. The navy could operate them as training grounds for recruits. Already paid for, safe, and available. Just dock them, staff them, and wire them up.

This is a very practical and proven approach – the first US civilian nuclear powerplant (Shippingport, PA, 1957) used a reactor designed for an aircraft carrier. It is rumored – I have it from a former US Navy submariner – that a US nuclear submarine was used, or considered for use, to relieve power outages in 1970s Manhatan.

The main problems I anticipate with such a plan have to do with the nature of naval reactors. They’re made to be compact, require expensive fuel (Uranium-zirconium and aluminum alloys, rather than the usual civilian UO2, with uranium enrichment of 90%+, rather than the usual civilian 5%), and operate for a long time (10-50 years) without refueling. They are, consequently, refueling is costlier and more difficult. In many cases, the best “refueling” procedure for naval nukes is to entomb and dispose of the entire reactor – they are, essentially disposable. For example, after 25 years of operation, the Shippingport reactor was removed whole, shipped cross-country, and buried at Hanford Nuclear Reservation at Richland, Washington.

It may be possible to get the last bit of service life from decommissioning nuclear ships by using them for civilian power generation (in the US, there are currently 83 subs and 20 surface vessles), but likely not more than a few years per ship.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by CraigD

It may be possible to get the last bit of service life from decommissioning nuclear ships by using them for civilian power generation (in the US, there are currently 83 subs and 20 surface vessles), but likely not more than a few years per ship.It may be possible to get the last bit of service life from decommissioning nuclear ships by using them for civilian power generation (in the US, there are currently 83 subs and 20 surface vessles), but likely not more than a few years per ship.

I learn something every day here. It has been a few years, but I remember reading about promising experiments with plastic and ceramic materials that had superconducting properties at normal temeratures. I will have to look up and see where that stands.

Bill

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I would like this thread to be about solutions to power needs. I will begin with two suggestions.

1) I have heard that 30% of the electrical power generated in the US is lost as heat while distributing it through the power grid. If this is true then we should be developing superconducting cables to rebuild the distribution network. This would boost available power without increasing fuel consumption. It would also allow the grid to share power over longer distances without losing efficiency. There are currently several companies developing such cables, but they will not be common until we overcome the need to use supercooled materials. When a company can do that, put your money into it.

I just watched an interesting interview on Charlie Rose concerning our energy policy in the US; please be patient for a link as it's not up yet.

Meantime, one of the items mentioned is similar to Big Dog's point on wasted heat. Rather than try & pipe the heat from generating plants, putting the generating plant in the building/facility using the electricity makes the heat readily available for secondary use. According to the guest, this is already working.

Originally Posted by TBD

2) More nuclear power. But make just a few "super reactors" that supply power for whole sections of the globe.
Any other ideas?

Bill

Charlie asked his guest about nuclear and the response was that it's not a good bet economically. If I understood correctly, micro-power electrical generation (windmills, solar panels) in the US already exceeds worldwide nuclear production.

On reducing our own use, I flashed on this idea today; take out all the sound equipment in the car and loose maybe 20 pounds of the vehicle weight. Do you really need 6 speakers, a super bass, 15 CD changer etcetera? No; I think not. Waste not, want not. Be back with the interview info as soon as I find it.

PS Found it! >> Amory Lovins - Charlie Rose

[maikeru]

1. Geothermal energy. Could produce much inexpensive electricity, heating, or possibly more.

'Heat Mining' Backed In Geothermal Energy Report
A Step Toward Inexpensive Geothermal Energy
Helium Isotopes Point To New Sources Of Geothermal Energy

2. Capturing solar power through algae and converting their biomass into biofuels. Plants and algae can catch a larger amount of sunlight to use as energy (35%+ depending on type of photosynthesis and pigments) than most solar cells can (15-25%), and they also sequester CO2, grow faster under higher temperatures, clean air and water, and do a lot of other neat things. Certain areas of the American West and southern US would be ideal, because of their abundant land, weather, and intense solar radiation or mostly sunny days. Marine algae/seaweeds could also be a possibility. They also don't waste energy by converting sugars into wood, stems, or leaves, which means more harvestable energy is left for biofuel production.

Renewed Interest In Turning Algae Into Fuel Generated
Algae From The Ocean May Offer A Sustainable Energy Source Of The Future
Biodiesel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (look at the estimated yield for algae-derived biodiesel, which you will see could be the #1 feedstock)
Algae fuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3. Other aquatic plants are a possibility so long as they multiply quickly and produce abudant, harvestable biomass, e.g., duckweed.

Could Pond Scum Undo Pollution, Fight Global Warming And Alleviate World Hunger?

4. Biochar from biomass. Enrich soil with biochar to make something like terra preta, grow crops, forests, etc. on it, and harvest and pyrolyze. Store biochar and use like coal. Suggest replacing coal with biochar, and then using CO2 capture or fixation techniques to sequester carbon. This has the advantage of not releasing certain contaminants like mercury and uranium into the air from coal-fired power plants. If the CO2 is caught by sequestration systems such as algae, then those can also be turned into other biofuels, used as fertilizer, or burnt again for energy.