Solar power sissies; Plutonium for spacecraft is BACK!!

http://phys.org/news/2015-12-ornl-mi...um-sample.html

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 12:36:55 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-ornl-mi...um-sample.html

Of course, this is still not by a long shot good enough news. Plutonium for
*electrical power* is what we need to have back, to stop squandering our valuable
Uranium-235 resources.

In addition, of course, to being able to turn Thorium-232 into fissionable
Uranium-233 to get even more electrical power from the rocks of the Earth.

John Savard

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:14:07 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 12:36:55 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-ornl-mi...um-sample.html

Of course, this is still not by a long shot good enough news. Plutonium for
*electrical power* is what we need to have back, to stop squandering our valuable
Uranium-235 resources.

In addition, of course, to being able to turn Thorium-232 into fissionable
Uranium-233 to get even more electrical power from the rocks of the Earth.

I doubt we'll see either, as this technology is rapidly becoming
uneconomical in comparison to renewable sources.

On Sunday, 27 December 2015 11:14:10 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 12:36:55 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-ornl-mi...um-sample.html

Of course, this is still not by a long shot good enough news. Plutonium for
*electrical power* is what we need to have back, to stop squandering our valuable
Uranium-235 resources.

In addition, of course, to being able to turn Thorium-232 into fissionable
Uranium-233 to get even more electrical power from the rocks of the Earth.

John Savard

There must have been real problems with Thorium reactors since they never amounted to anything.

On Sunday, 27 December 2015 13:17:05 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 08:14:07 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 12:36:55 AM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-ornl-mi...um-sample.html

Of course, this is still not by a long shot good enough news. Plutonium for
*electrical power* is what we need to have back, to stop squandering our valuable
Uranium-235 resources.

In addition, of course, to being able to turn Thorium-232 into fissionable
Uranium-233 to get even more electrical power from the rocks of the Earth.

I doubt we'll see either, as this technology is rapidly becoming
uneconomical in comparison to renewable sources.

The two major renewables still rank dead-last in terms of efficiency, which means "how much energy in, to get energy out."

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:

The two major renewables still rank dead-last in terms of efficiency, which means "how much energy in, to get energy out."

What's the difference, if the energy in is free? Efficiency will increase as the technology advances...

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 11:17:05 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I doubt we'll see either, as this technology is rapidly becoming
uneconomical in comparison to renewable sources.

The Sun shines in the daytime, and the wind doesn't always blow.

Hydroelectricity is proven, but geography is not kind to some major cities.

I think it's a choice between nuclear and continuing to use fossil fuels.

John Savard

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 6:22:56 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

There must have been real problems with Thorium reactors since they never amounted to anything.

There are still engineering problems - but I expect them to be fixed long before
we get fusion power.

John Savard

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 8:27:41 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:

What's the difference, if the energy in is free? Efficiency will increase as
the technology advances...

The problems with wind and solar, in addition to being intermittent, have to do
with efficiency in terms of how much energy you get for how many acres of land
the power plant occupies, and how much environmental impact you have.

Solar is fine if you've got a lot of desolate desert nearby; if, instead, you
have to put good agricultural land in the shade, there's an impact.

John Savard

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 7:35:14 PM UTC-8, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 8:27:41 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:

What's the difference, if the energy in is free? Efficiency will increase as
the technology advances...

The problems with wind and solar, in addition to being intermittent, have to do
with efficiency in terms of how much energy you get for how many acres of land
the power plant occupies, and how much environmental impact you have.

Solar is fine if you've got a lot of desolate desert nearby; if, instead, you
have to put good agricultural land in the shade, there's an impact.

John Savard

Well, there is uncountable desert wasteland acreage in my neck of the woods, but I understand that this isn't the case in most places. Also in my neck of the woods they have just shut down the only nuclear power plant, due to the failure of pipes that were only 2 years old and were warranted for 20. Rather than go after the manufacturer to make good on that warranty, the utility decided to shut it down a stick the rate-payers with the $10.4 billion cost to decommission the joint...

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/aug/03...osure-95-bill/

\Paul A
Doncha just love politicians and CEOs?