Skip navigation
21comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Tim Elder

May 5, 2014
09:51

Member


1 |
Share via:
Looks like my longer comment disappeared again! I wanted to clarify whether you are talking about fast or thermal reactors. Also to say that a proposal has been made for boron propulsion for vehicles that would eliminate hydrocarbons.

Tom Morris

May 5, 2014
10:12

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
there are numerous designs that can achieve the goal of supplying large amounts of power cleanly some links: LINK: http://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Small-Reactor-Designs-Can-Recycle-Used-Nuclear-Fue LINK:http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/ A google search will find many variations including new fuel designs for reactors that increase safety and reduce waste. The essintial part of my proposal is that increased availablity of clean power along with education and scial change can result in a shift in how we all live. if abundant electricity is available thaen a push for technologies that use said energy is more practical. As the standard of living and education rises old cultural behaviors that are coouter to a well functioning socciety will hopefully be outgrown while aspects of our cultures worth preserving are retained. We muse emphasis critical thinking and problem solving using existing tools as well as exploration of new technologies.

Tom Morris

May 5, 2014
10:04

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
argh social change!, I need to spell check when i type. :)

Tom Morris

May 5, 2014
10:19

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
My proposal is essentally an expansion of the IFR proposal of 2013 with the addition of incorporating other safe reactor designs and an emphasis on education as well as design of technologies to effectively put the generated power to use, especially in the field of transportation.

Sardar Mohazzam

May 6, 2014
08:50

Catalyst


5 |
Share via:
Good Start! It seems to me a grandiose theory of change. In your proposal your proposed the waste produced from nuclear will be small and collected safely, however, what about in Developing countries ? As you mentioned they need a lot of energy for their development pursuits, and they development following the business as usual may become reason of great emission and pollution in coming years. The governance system (Command- and - Control system)in these countries is not very mature, and collection can become a big problem. Also, think people in these developed countries are scattered in vast geographic areas. The centralized small nuclear power plants, will demand billion of dollars to deliver that electricity to these customers. This will be very expensive! There are other options which are cheap and distributed. What do you think ?

Tom Morris

May 6, 2014
09:06

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I think that a dual approach is necessary. Rapid implementation of Nuclear power where practical. In the U.S. for instance as proposed in last years contest the IFR program should be restarted. In developing countries more easily applied short term solutions followed by nuclear programs as more mature societal and government institutions develop. It is a grandiose plan I freely admit but I believe it can be accomplished over time. I have a supporting proposal in the Education area titled RISE that is a proposal to address some of the societal problems you correctly raised. Technology without understanding is useless if not outright dangerous so societal change is an important step prior to adoption of the Nuclear solution.

Jeff Harti

May 7, 2014
11:09

Fellow


7 |
Share via:
@tominga, thank you for your proposal and comments. I look forward to reading it in greater detail, but certainly agree with the need social/societal change regardless of which technologies you want to implement.

Tom Morris

May 8, 2014
07:04

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Thank you, I need to find time to get more specifics into the proposal along with references. I look forward to feedback which may improve on my ideas.

Tom Morris

May 14, 2014
10:31

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
An interim solution in areas where solar/wind won't work and nuclear is not feasible due to social instability is multifuel gas turbine systms as described in the link below. LINK: http://www.ge-energy.com/content/multimedia/_files/downloads/Fuel%20Flexibility%20White%20Paper.pdf GE does a great job of discussing the impact of each fuel choice.

Tom Morris

May 14, 2014
10:09

Member


10 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
The more I read the paper above the more I feel that the best path forward is: Use reactor technology where feasible and cost effective. Use multifuel gas turbine technology to create cleaner power generation and incorporate "carbon recycling" into the generation of power. This technology seems more readily adaptable to use in a wider area than Nuclear. In areas where mass transit is more redily accepted develope electric powered mass transit to make use of clean energy provided. develop more efficient wider range electric vehicles for use in areas where mass transit is not a viable option.

Tom Morris

May 14, 2014
10:06

Member


11 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
This technology being studied at Stanford and "suprise" MIT could give us the wide range electric vehicle. LINK: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/february/wireless-vehicle-charge-020112.html I think an all encompassing strategy like the one I propose above can allow use to both generate more than enough power for future needs while reducing the negative impact on the ecosystem.

Tom Morris

May 14, 2014
10:28

Member


12 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
similar system is use in south korea. LINK: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163171-worlds-first-road-powered-electric-vehicle-network-switches-on-in-south-korea

Mark Johnson

May 29, 2014
07:29

Member


13 |
Share via:
Per the EPA (as of 2012 - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html) here's a rank-order list of GHG emission sources: 32% Electricity, 28% Transportation, 20% Industry, 10% Commercial/Residential, 10% Agriculture. Unfortunately, we are hooked on fossil fuel for the near-mid term. Hybrid car sales are growing but still represent a small part of all cars and trucks on the road. Mr. Boone Pickens' vision is to fuel commercial trucks with natural gas - a good idea. Then there is the issue of energy distribution. Wind turbine energy distribution requires very precise implementation/apparatus. Tesla cars has done a great job by recently completing its first coast-to-coast recharging station route (with charge times as little as 38 minutes). Imagine the infrastructure cost for Tesla to network 48 states. We have over a 500-year supply of coal. Has there ever been a hypothesis proven or disproven that converting current electric plants to "clean coal" makes sense (buying time to build a new nuclear plant infrastructure?) I'd have to assess CO2 differential between fossil fuel generation and clean coal, e.g.,carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds. I checked the EPA's "clean energy programs" and there are no clean coal projects cited (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-programs/index.html). On the other hand, the Department of Energy has been proactive on clean coal (http://energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/clean-coal-research/major-demonstrations/futuregen-20). Prevailing winds/winds aloft carry mega-tons of CO2 transcontinental. Therefore, real cooperation is required. Plausible scenario - high emission countries with vast shorelines use wave, tidal and ocean energy technologies, solar, wind. Other GHG-friendly energy generation is captured among these GHG producers and a shared distribution infrastructure is utilized between/among friendly countries (yes, sounds good, but geo-political obstacles will always exist). Thank you. Mark

Tom Morris

May 30, 2014
10:25

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
@ecoelite I think we should use available solutions such as the IFR, natural gas etc... the idea of "use whats best in a particular area based on available resouces and cost/return is important. Evem incremental impprovements in reducing GHG emissions is still improvement. in areas where new improved nuclear will work-use it. in areas where wind is feasible-use it and so on. The search for "one" solution is segregating people into factions that exhibit an unhealthy and almost religous fanatacism that their solution is right and all others are wrong. there are many useful ideas that if implemented could facilitate reduction in ghg emissions if we could get past peoples ego's and fears.

Nanda Kumar Janardhanan

Jun 3, 2014
06:52

Fellow


15 |
Share via:
This theme has great relevance. The below points may add bit more value 1. How far the cost of replacing existing infrastructure can be an accepted framework for economies 2. Bit of meaningful data crunching to show the actual cost and the possible impacts can bring some value

Takako Wakiyama

Jun 6, 2014
06:41

Catalyst


16 |
Share via:
Need to clarify the costs for R&D as well as construction and operation and the treatment of wastes after reactor decommissioning. Before public relations and media experts to the use of nuclear power, it should reveal and ensure the safety and cost-effectiveness of nuclear power generation by identifying the potential risks and uncertainties and the policies and actions to deal with if something happens. Also it should identify who will take all the responsibilities for the nuclear. The accidents can damage human lives and ecosystems in the regions, the risks and uncertainties should be identified and the solutions should be clarified. In Japan, there are no assurance for safety and methods to prevent all potential risks and uncertainty. That means, there are possibilities the same accidents or different unexpected accidents will occur.

Derrek Clarke

Jun 11, 2014
06:36

Catalyst


17 |
Share via:
I like the framework and the idea of social change, as well as the notion of using what works best for particular areas. There is no one size fits all solution. I agree. However, I'm having trouble getting around the nuclear waste issue. Yes, less waste may be produced, but nuclear waste is still being produced and will still have to be stored with extensive safety measures. I don't see where that is a positive. You have the elevated costs of building out the plant coupled with the cost of waste and a downward curve on energy prices. It doesn't make for a good scenario. Solar, wind, small scale hydro, geothermal, and storage technologies don't have the nuclear waste issue and all have specific areas where they are maximized. Figuring out how to effectively integrate these with social change may be a more beneficial option in the long-term than nuclear.

Saravanan Dhalavoi Pandian

Jun 19, 2014
04:17

Catalyst


18 |
Share via:
Apart from the waste and safety issue of nuclear power, nuclear power based electricity generation is not carbon neutral. Nuclear based power generation still emits GHG emissions considering life cycle concept - http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_nuclear.html Also the cost of nuclear power generation is not very competitive when compared with conventional power (coal / gas etc) and even when compared with renewables. http://www.synapse-energy.com/Downloads/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022.pdf http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/

Michael Brown

Jun 21, 2014
12:27

Catalyst


19 |
Share via:
I don't understand what you are proposing, aside from 'everything'.

Jessica Thompson

Jun 24, 2014
03:26

Member


20 |
Share via:
An ambitious proposal. The measures proposed are too broad to assess and inadequate treatment is given to the feasibility and financial and economic aspects. If the proposal is regarding a policy change or paradigm shift of some sort please focus on that specific aspect.

Climate Colab

Aug 13, 2014
04:19

Member


21 |
Share via:
We agree with many of the statements made here, that a paradigm shift could solve much of our current problems without new technologies. That said, this is more of a policy statement than a proposal.No real action items are identified that address any of the social, political or international barriers to this shift. This is a more of a statement of what the ideal solution should be, not an actionable proposal. In a future proposal, please specify specific areas of emphasis, types of approaches, funding, and create clear and thorough analysis. There can be large, direct and positive impacts created by the ideas outlined in your proposal, but the how needs to be elaborated on and flushed out.
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.