Reliable sources of clean energy and human nature. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: John Heath
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2018, 05:08:13 pm
content: Why reinvent the wheel if reliable sources of energy are already in place. Nuclear is the best one but they tax it to a point that it does not make sense. An example is energy efficient LED lights. People jumped on that one to reduce the hydro bill. The good folks in nuclear energy now have a problem as less money is coming in. Heads will roll at the next meeting. There solution is to add a delivery charge on top of hydro usage. They are back in the black so problem solved. In short it's a no win for energy in a capitalist system. We have all the clean energy we need. The problem is human greed to stand in the way of clean energy with a hand out for money. To give this balance the crumbs that fall off the table from a capitalist system are better then the crumbs that come from a government like China. On average capitalism is better.One way around this is a small locally built energy source , water dam , wind mill , what ever with fewer sticky fingers in the cookie jar. In other words the answer to affordable clean energy is already in place. The real problem is sticky fingers in the cookie jar.I know a guy who resolved the sticky fingers problem in Chile. He bought some land half way up a mountain then build his own house along with some pluming to a water source higher up. He was clever at engineering so a small hydro plant was soon to follow. In 20 years he has not payed one hydro bill. As I said before clean energy is already in place. It is the sticky fingers that is the problem. Have a gander at paradise in Chile.https://ludens.cl/

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2018, 09:56:33 pm
content: Gonna be crowded on that hill when the worlds 7.6 Billion inhabitants move their to get cheap 'lecy..........(solving one mans (or one families) energy needs in a clean, efficient way is easy. Solving the planets needs, a lot harder)

author: John Heath
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2018, 11:20:08 pm
content: Good point. Plan B everyone protest against government using hydro power money as a quick tax grab. If they need more money to run the country then say so honestly and up front. This will free up clean and cheap nuclear energy for electric cars and heat homes. The sooner we get away from burning oil the better. Someone stands tall and says I need to increase taxes to run the country , vote for me. Not likely. It's the good looking one " I am your perfume you stinky animal vote for me " that gets elected. The problem with democracy is everyone want to vote.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2018, 02:25:16 pm
content: Seems Ike everyone knows a guy who has a solution hat works for him. (But non one knows who the guy’s name or where he lives. For every guy like you described there are a thousand who it didn’t work for.Have you ever tried doing the water to electrical energy calculation? With a 10 foot drop in elevation one needs 500,000 gallons of water to continually produce 750 watts of electricity for a year. That”s a lot of water. And just think how little 750 watts is. In using all 750 watts ther’s no enough electricity for my daughter to blow dry her hair.Here’s an interesting figure. The amount of work one can get out of 50 gallons of gasoline is the same amount as 10 slaves working for a year.Interesting statistic.

author: Gregg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2018, 04:29:29 pm
content: Then there are the so called "environmentalists" that won't let you mess with the water flow of any stream because you might bother the fish or worse yet they will search for some relatively unknown life form that is "endangered" to prevent you from using your own land. These same people still want to plug in their "green" electric cars, run their air conditioners etc.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2018, 04:58:51 pm
content: I have found environmentalist who have traded in their car for a bike to save the planet. But I have yet to meet an an environmentalst who will give up a wahingmachine and do laundry by hand to save the planet.As for the fish in the sreams, you should do a bit of research before condemning the environmentalists. Where I live a local stream was dammed decades ago which prevented fish from traveling upstream. In your mind your are thinking big deal, right? It is a big deal. The lack of fish meant lack of food for animals upstream that would feed on the fish. Now the animals have to switch to a different food source. The animals they were eating allowed other animals to take their place on the food chain which caused other issues. This ultimately required local farmers to use pesticides kill off critters which in the past had not bothered them.There are consequences for everything we do. Don’t thing damming a stream does’t have an impact on our environment, it does.I live in California where we have some the the toughest anti-pollution laws. Thank you legislators for enacting these laws decades ago as we have clean air now. I remember as a kid There were days when the sky was a greenish-yellow-brown from air pollution. We were told to stay inside as the air was unsafe to breath. Thanks to California’s anti-polution laws we have not had any smog days in decades.In the past we use to dump untreated human waste into the Pacific Ocean making the beaches and water unsafe.. Thanks to environmentalists and legislators waste water has to be treated. Our beaches and water like the air is clean again.But not for much longer. Air pollution from China is blowing across the Pacific Ocean and we are on the verge of having smog days once again. And Mexico is dumping their raw sewage in the Pacific Ocean which is traveling north along th cost of California polluting the oceans and beaches.Environmentalists and government worked very hard decades ago to clean things up. Now we are getting screwed again by our neighbors who don’t care about the planet.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2018, 05:26:39 pm
content: QuoteNuclear is toxic waste. Hardly the "best" source of energy.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2018, 05:42:41 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on April 10, 2018, 05:26:39 pmUmmm, you might wnat to rethink that. Without nuclear energy we would not exist. It is nucelar energy which provides energy for plant to grow, which we eat, and energy for humans. Nuclear energy in 100% natural. And the first nuclear reactor was not man made, it was 100% naturaly made.Nuclear energy from fusion creates no long lasting toxic waste which is why so many companies and nations are working on it. NIF, ITER, Bill Gates' company, Paul Alllen's company and many others.Yes some nuclear watse is toxic and humans did stupid things with it in the past. I live in Califonria and the University of Califonrina dumped all of their nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean next to the Farrallon Islands which is a wilds life refuege.You got a better solutin than nuclear to supply the people of the world with energy?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 02:57:30 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 10, 2018, 05:42:41 pmThe great fusion reactor in the sky is one I really like to take advantage of. (In my experience, it goes really well with blockchains but that's another story...) And so far, it's the only fusion reactor that has produced a useful amount of power.Beware that while it is the safest nuclear reactor that exists, excessive exposure to its radiation can still cause cancer. Still, it is the only form of nuclear power I would actually like to see neighbors playing with.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 03:23:00 am
content: Far more people have died have been killed from coal then with nuclear power.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 03:27:49 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 03:23:00 amSo far....

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 05:42:34 am
content: We’ve had two major nuclear accidents and and over 10,000 coal related accidents. The death toll from coal accidents is 100,000 times more than nuclear. Yes we have nuclear waste sites, but there are far more coal waste sites which are as toxic to humans.Then let’s not forget the burning of coal releases readioactive millions of tons or radioactive isotopes intro our atmosphere every year. Now that’s something nuclear power plants don’t do.The next generation of nuclear power plants will use low molecular weight molecules for fuel. Should a Chernobyl size accident occur spewing radioactive isotopes in the environment all we have to do is wait 25 years and the all of the isotopes will have decayed away.Got a better solution than nuclear?

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 06:19:02 am
content: I am against nuclear energy (the man-made variety) to generate power.The problem I have with it is that as long as everything goes fine, the profits are raked in by the companies that build and operate these plants. A safe investment, as the price per kWh is guaranteed by the government (us) for a long time. But as soon as something goes wrong in a major way it is society that pays the big bills. In tax money for cleaning up, in lost and shortened lives of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, in getting uninhabitable areas where people used top live.I will become a supporter of nuclear energy as soon as the real price of it (that includes decommissioning, insurance for cleaning up after disasters and such) is part of the price of the nuclear-generated kWh. Which I suspect will then be so much higher than power generated by alternatives that it will be unaffordable.And to stress my point, I do think it is important that we keep searching for inherently safe nuclear solutions. With tax money, and not with venture capital.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 08:04:08 am
content: QuoteThat's totally wrong statistics.The deaths induced by the contamination of the environment with radionucleides is recorded nowhere.And these are far higher than expected, because the waste invariably leaks out of the containment over a few years, when it's supposed to be contained a few millions of years.BIG. FAIL.QuoteI use plane receptors for clean nuclear energy on my roof. No problem with them so far.Other clean ones are hydro and wind.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 08:45:15 am
content: Just place a solar panel on every surface, where it makes sense. Rooftops, on top of parking lots, huge unused semi-desert places. Until that is done, there is nothing to talk about. Sure it is not going to solve alone the problem. But complaining about that is like complaining that we can't solve world hunger with just chocolate cakes.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 08:50:00 am
content: Quote from: woody on April 11, 2018, 06:19:02 amSo you are against nuclear energy.... What’s your solution?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 09:01:54 am
content: Quote from: f4eru on April 11, 2018, 08:04:08 amThe deaths from radionuclides are recorded. Question is, how do we know which deaths are from the radio nucleotides released from the burning of coal, nuclear power accidents, above ground testing of nuclear weapons or naturally occurring background ionizing radiation?Nice to see you are using a plane receptor on your roof, but what about the other almost 8 billion people on this planet? Are you selfish? Or are you willing to share what you collect with you plane receptor?BIG FAIL if you are selfish and just care about yourself.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 09:20:22 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 11, 2018, 08:51:55 amWith all due respect it apers you do not understand the physics, the technical difficulties, the cost or the amount of natural resources it would take to do what you are proposing.Right now 2% of the worlds electricty comes from solar. The solar industry best estimates are by 2050 we would be lucky to get that number to be 12%. So where does the other 88% of the worlds energy come from when there will be 8 billion people? Forget cost, we just don’t have the natural resources mined, or the manufacturing capabilities or the technology to produce more than 12% in the next 30 years.If all you care about is yourself, then throw som panels on your roof and let the rest of the world burn fossil fuels. With the ever increasing demand for electricity the only technology we have is next gen nuclear.Do the math and sees for yourself.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 10:36:26 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 09:20:22 amLarge part of the world, solar is cheaper than the current generation. If you install solar, not only do you make it cleaner, you also make power generation cheaper. Thinking that solar is not going to work is like pointing at the Ford T-model and saying that its never gonna work. You only make yourself look like a fool.EU is apparently bulding a Super-grid to link everything together, and to allow countries with bad weather to receive power from somewhere else.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid#/media/File:TREC-Map-en.jpgThe rest of the world will look like they are stuck in the 20 century.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 11:31:42 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 11, 2018, 10:36:26 amFriend Henry Ford was not trying to change the laws os Physics and thermodynamics like you are. Where are you going to get all of the raw materials to make all of these cheap solar panels? And once you mine the raw materials where are the plants to build the panels? Then you have to use ships and trucks to deliver these solar panels to the people who need them. Any idea how much fossil fuel has been consumed before a panel produces any electricity?Then what happens on cloudy days as happened in Germany and England. Last year they had to burn more coal then they ever had even with all the people who have solar on their roofs.If solar is so cheap as you say why did the solar companies stop selling solar in Nevada? It’s one of the sunniest states in the country. Could it be solar is not as inexpensive as you say?Can I suggest you try doing what Henry Ford did before he began selling cars.... Do the math calculations to see if what you are saying makes any sense.

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 04:07:42 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 08:50:00 amI don't have THE solution but a couple of things spring to mind:We have to understand that we are spoiled beyond belief by the fact that we could have the equivalent of 33MJ of energy in a liter of easily transportable, storable and usable fuel, costing only a dollar. These days are gone.- Conserve as much energy as possible. Insulate. Then insulate again. Take the train/bus/bike. Live close to your work. Work from home. Stop flying. We don't have to go back to playing solitaire by candlelight or doing the laundry on a washboard as most energy is spent in heating buildings, transportation and the industry while lighting and household electricity only use a fraction of the total. But we will have to adapt our lifestyle to use less energy.- Make the cost of energy fair. Level the play field. Stop subsidizing nuclear and fossil. When that is done we can immediately stop subsidizing renewables because these will be far cheaper than the alternatives. Supply and demand will then lead to large investments in renewable energy generation. Fair pricing of energy will no doubt impact the price we pay for stuff. An iPhone, a steak, a car, a holiday to the sun, and a same-day-delivery from Amazon will be way more expensive and rightly so.- Invest heavily in research in electricity storage. There are lots of options based on batteries, hydrogen, formic acid, compressed air, flywheels, Energy trains, pumped storage and what not, that all need to be taken out of the lab and into the field.The changeover to renewable energy will have a big impact on us and will certainly hurt in some ways. But taking into account that the amount of clean solar energy that hits the surface of the earth every hour is equivalent of the total human energy use in a year we would be stupid not to harness that in some way. And stupid we are not.

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 04:31:30 pm
content: The solution? All of the above. A mixed basket.But the particular energy source mix is very dependent on where exactly you live. For instance, geothermal is great in Iceland, not so much on Saudi Arabia.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 04:40:32 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 09:20:22 am3M thinks they can do 25 year lifetime with polymer barrier film, the amount of silicon can go down a lot too. Once the important part is flexible you don't need a lot of rigidity in the housing anymore either. Instead of solar panels well have large sheets held in tension in light weight frames with a fraction of the materials used now.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 05:13:53 pm
content: Quote from: woody on April 11, 2018, 04:07:42 pmNo disrespect intended, but really, this is you answer?Have you done any calculations, (Henry Ford did), to see how much energy insulating and then insulating again would save?You do realize we subsidize the solar and wind industry. Energy from coal is more expensive then solar and wind. We will probably never go back to using coal.Natural gas is so inexpensive right now, it’s almost being given away.We have been investing in electricty storage for over 100 year. The laws of physics and thermodynamics are exactly the same as they were then, as they are now.Do you have any idea how much energy can be stored in batteries, hydrogen, formic acid, compressed air, flywheels? Have you done or seen the calculation? It’s not much. If all of the batteries in the world were to be used to store and provide electricty it would supply less than 5 minutes of our electrical needs.Here you have all of these wonderful ideas but have you looked to see just how practical they are in application?Yes we can conserve, but only 1/8 of the world is using 90% of the energy. Are you going to deprive the other 7/8s of the world who need electricty for clean drinking water and cooking that electricty?Can I ask you to become more familiar with your fellow man and get to know what’s happening on this planet we live on?Man is the only species which uses more energy than we consume. We alway have, and always will. And get ready to live on this planet with 2 billion more of your fellow energy consuming humans. Until you or mankind comes up with another solution these additional 2 billion people will burn fuel adding to more greenhouse gasses. All humans are addicted to the burning of hydrocarbons.So what’s the solution? Not what you have suggested. Gas, oil, coal, wind, geothermal wave, solar, hydro, chemical - Nope none of these will supply enough energy within causing additional problems forhuman life on earth. Just leaves one.... Nuclear. It’s clean, It’s green, and renewable and far more energy dense than fossil fuels.The countries of the world and billionaires who are soon to die in the next 20 years are spending money on next-generation of nuclear energy. I’m not a fan of nuclear. Waitin 60 miles of my house are two nuclear contaminated waste sites.I will ask again, got a bettter solution than what you’ve suggested so far or next-gen nuclear? I hope so. But the laws of physics are against you.https://youtu.be/6sqnptxlCcwhttps://youtu.be/grZSxoLPqXI

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 05:41:41 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 05:13:53 pmAnd did you do the calculation? Here is one for you:Solar power on small scale has an energy payback time of just 2-3 years (all energy made, that is used for manufacturing) and has a financial payback time of 6-7 years. Without subsidies.A modern nuclear plant has no payback time, as it is way too expensive. They start building it, and it will not pay for itself over its entire lifetime. And usually the plant costs go above the estimates by billions. And the decomissioning cost is usually "let's just ignore this for now" in the business plan.Here is a recent project for you:"EDF has previously said France's first EPR would cost €3.3 billion and start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.On 3 December 2012 EDF announced that the estimated costs have escalated to €8.5 billion ($11 billion), and the completion of construction is delayed to 2016. The next day the Italian power company Enel announced it was relinquishing its 12.5% stake in the project, and 5 future EPRs, so would be reimbursed its project stake of €613 million plus interest.In November 2014 EDF announced that completion of construction was delayed to 2017 due to delays in component delivery by Areva....The EPR (Flamanville 3) aimed to be safer than any previous reactor, but as of 2016 the project is three times over budget and years behind schedule. In September 2015 EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €10.5 billion, and the start-up of the reactor was delayed to the fourth quarter of 2018."Great plan. Here, I give you the key to the planet, save us.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 06:28:01 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 05:13:53 pmPhysics which allowed us to construct GWh level storage in ways which made sense at the time. We've never looked for non hydro storage solutions, because we never needed it. Fossil fuels and supplying on demand was cheaper. We've had maybe half a decade where there is economic incentive to look for super-cheap scalable storage solutions, thanks to subsidized renewable energy gluts ... not 100 years. Give it a little time.

author: woody
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 06:33:57 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 05:13:53 pmWell, it is like 5000 lawyers on the bottom of the sea: a start.QuoteI did. At least for my house, half of which is 200 years old, atm uses 2500m3 NG / year on average. It is partly isolated. If I get the insulation up to today's standards, that will go down at least 40%. Joules you do not have to put in don't have to be generated. If I get the energy use down by that a heatpump will supply the heating easily.QuoteYou do realize that we subsidize fossil fuels way more than we do renewables? According to the IMF:https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-07/imf-true-cost-fossil-fuels-53-trillion-yearQuoteThat is because we do not pay for the pollution created by burning that gas. 1m3 = 33MJ = 10kWh = 1.78 kg CO2QuoteI beg to differ. Due to the availability of dead cheap energy there was no push at all to look into ways of generating and storing large amounts of electrical energy. Portable computing is the biggest driver behind developments in storage. That is why a Tesla is (still) filled with 7000+ silly 18650 lithium cells. I dare say that had we been developing batteries for a century that would not have been the case.QuoteYep. Man said it could not be done. And still planes do fly.QuoteWe don't need months of storage. Electricity is easily transported and over great distances. As they say, the sun always shines somewhere, as does the wid blow. Smart use of available energy (smart grids, price driven use-it-when-it's-there) brings the amount of storage needed down. Do we need batteries? Only for mobile systems. For grid connected storage something likehttps://www.ecn.nl/news/item/floating-train-at-2000-kmh-set-to-store-10-of-dutch-electricity/would be nice. Far off? So is clean nuclear.QuoteNo, I'm not. Good thing that these other countries seem to learn from our mistakes. Partly because their population is coughing their lungs out and partly because it is the cheapest option atm they install and use more renewables than our so-called civilized part of the world.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Indiahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_ChinaBut hey, we feel it is much more necessary to go on a holiday 3 times a year to a sunny island to take a look at the dying coral reefs than to pay for a couple of solar panels on our roofs.QuoteNo. Only our part of the world is addicted to fossil fuels. Which is the reason we react so strongly when confronted with the biggest part of the solution: conservation. Use Less Energy. A junkies worst nightmare, that is.QuoteUranium is a finite fuel, even if we manage to make it from seawater. Thorium is vaporware. Fission is vaporware. Building a nuclear reactor costs at least 10 years. In those 10 years so much will be changed in our energy use that the energy from nuclear will be unaffordable.And a pity that you seem to have missed my remark about nuclear. I am not dead against it, but I feel it is only fair to ask from a nuclear power plant the same as we ask from people who erect a wind generator: make sure you insure against disaster and include the removal after decommissioning in the price for a kWh so the taxpayer is not left with the bill.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 06:44:53 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 11, 2018, 05:41:41 pmHold on partner. I live in the US where the cost for a kWhr ranges from $0.03 to $0.85. At $0.03 it's not a less than 10 year payback as you suggest. And here in the US we have a 30% and somtimes more subsidy.Try doing your calcuations based on actual numbers, as in 0.03 to $0.85 kWhr and see what you come up wtih.As for nuclear you are talking about current nuclear technologies. THat's not the same thing as NextGen Nuclear. Entirely differnt process and technology. When current nucelar power technology is green it there is long lvied radioactive waste which needs to be dealt with.Not ture with NextGen Nuclear. It's green and completly renewable and there are no long lived radioactive waste.Are we talkign about the same thing? Soudns to me like you have the technologies mixed up.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 06:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 06:44:53 pmZinc air batteriesare entirely different technology than Lithium Ion.On sea gravity storageis entirely different technology than existing grid scale storage.Both sides have pies in the sky with nice looking math to back it up. Both sides need government funding to get ahead

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 07:39:24 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on April 11, 2018, 06:55:34 pmNextGen Nuclear is well funded by governments and billionaires.,

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 07:41:47 pm
content: As are renewables, so lets see how it shakes out.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2018, 07:53:35 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 11, 2018, 07:39:24 pmAham,and it is only 25 years from introduction...BTW the ERP reactor is a 3rd generation reactor. There is a total of 8 of these. They must be really really successful.Also, please point out the 3 cent herehttps://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 04:18:16 am
content: Human nature is to not think far beyond ones immediate needs and desires.Human nature is to use up available resources as fast as is economically advantageous.Human nature led us to burn up millions of years of fossilized solar energy as fast as possible.Human nature is to ignore the adverse consequences of our actions until biological or societal consequences force us to.Human nature leads many to mock those who seek more sustainable sources of energy.Human nature leads many to adopt political tribalism and embrace denial or ignorance of the consequences of short term thinking.Human nature leads many to forget that without "environmentalists" there would be no regulations protecting clean air and water from corporate greed.Human nature leads some to ignore the long term consequences of accumulated spent nuclear fuel storage by impermanent human civilizations.Human nature leads many to expect technological solutions to all problems.Human nature means that we will continue to pursue infinite growth on a finite planet.Human nature means that we will burn every last joule of economically extractable fossil fuel.Human nature means that geopolitical strife will continue to escalate as nation tribes seek to control dwindling resources.Human nature means we will eventually succumb to physical limits and ecological realities as we continue to fight among ourselves.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 08:29:38 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 10, 2018, 04:58:51 pmThen they completely omit the fuel for that bike in their naive calculations. Of course they buy their fuel from the supermarket where half of it is shipped halfway around the world to be washed and packed, then halfway back around the world to be distributed to the supermarkets in CO2 hungry planes, ships and diesel trucks.Human power might be efficient, but it is not CO2 free! Far from it.There was an article I read where someone calculated it was nearly as efficient to drive a Ford Mondeo the half mile to the local shop for a pint of milk than it was to walk it. Based on the energy consumed by the body and the CO2 released + the CO2 et. al. required to farm, ship, package and cook the food required, even included the methane released as a result of digestion and the rotting left overs, off cuts.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 09:40:07 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 11, 2018, 07:53:35 pmCan’t. You are looking at the average prices, not actual prices for each state. Sho me a table with actual prices power companies charge and I will show you.

author: fourtytwo42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 10:46:35 am
content: I think this spat illustrates the human nature part of the OP's posting perfectly! Whllst the lobbyests quote increasingly increadable pseudo science against each other the politicians stand in the middle and unsuprisingly do nothing except occasionally some blip of daft policy like installing so called smart meters all over the UK at cost to the consumer who doesnt want them and nobody has yet been able to identify a benefit.I am with woody and others the best we can do is miminimise our personal energy consumption as that is within our personal power and is not subject to political lobbying and pseudo science of any kind.OK so I am not solving the worlds problems BUT trying to find some global solution that fits all is an utter waste of time, local solutions are needed for local situations, even down to a personal individual level.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 03:38:00 pm
content: QuoteWrong. 3cent/kwh is thepriceof electricity. Not thecostof electricity.Completely different thing.If you want to see how much the electricity costs in the US, look here :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Lazard_(2017)Nuclear electricity in the UScostsabout 3x more than utility scale PV now. The gap increases every year.You can guess what will be built more in the upcoming years.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 04:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on April 12, 2018, 03:38:00 pmBut it is NextGen™®, not the current one. It will actually plant trees and filter water, and pet hedgehogs. When it is ready. Only few more years...

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 04:40:49 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on April 12, 2018, 03:38:00 pmAll depends on which definition for each word you are using. In ours country someone asked what the price of something is. And the husband asks the wife how much that item is going to cost him.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 05:42:43 pm
content: There is not and will not be anything that will fully replace fossil fuels. That is not to say that alternatives are not needed. They are.We have squandered the easily extractable FF bounty we were handed and the remaining economically and energetically easy to extract FF resources are quickly being depleted.Every alternative energy source currently requires large amounts of societal subsidies and fossil fuel burning in its deployment. Nuclear is one of the worst in that regard with very large societal subsidies and large amounts of energy required for deployment. If one factors in subsidies and energy required to deal with spent fuel rods, then lifetime societal and energy cost is negative. Short term thinking and corporate cronyism is the only reason it continues to be deployed.But just because there is nothing that will fully replace fossil fuels, does not mean there are not some alternatives that are more viable than others.A few years ago, physicist Tom Murphy did an excellent series of blog posts examining the viability of various alternative energy sources. The summary post can be foundHERE. His summary table is below:

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 05:58:35 pm
content: The first world can shift consumption way down to make a transition. How well we are able to feed the rest of the world during the transition is a bigger problem.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 06:06:37 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on April 12, 2018, 05:58:35 pmFritz Haber solved this problem 100 years ago. Then with the use of petro-chemicals and GMOs we have more than enough food to feed everyone. I can get summer fruits anytime of the year.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 06:19:54 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on April 12, 2018, 05:58:35 pmYes, increased global food production since the 1940s has been almost entirely dependent on the availability of abundant and cheap fossil fuel inputs. Fertilizers, pesticides and diesel fuel.Eventually world population will fall far. How far and over what time frame is the question.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 06:24:55 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 12, 2018, 05:42:43 pmWe are addicted to hydrocarbon fuels and have a lot of it.One thing I don't understand is why is PV solar so high on the list. The guy is a physicist. One would think he would understand and has seen the issues with solar.The guy also fails to mention the amount of resources with have vs. what it will take use those resources to provide power. Not even close to being a full picture.For some reason he didn't include all the different types of NextGen nuclear.Mankind is betting on NetGen nuclear. If you do a bit of research of how much solar can produce vs what our needs are we are still 82% short in 35 years. And this is according to the solar power industry. These are their estimates.I'm not a fan of nuclear, but got a better solution? So far all of the "Free Energy", energy Unity people have failed.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 06:27:16 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 12, 2018, 05:42:43 pmYou do realize, that with sufficient solar and wind power, and a few P2G plants (Power-to-gas), it is possible to completely get rid of the current fossil fuel usage? Storing massive amount of gas is possible, and we can generate the gas from CO2 and H2O. In fact we can just reverse global warming altogether. And burning methane is not polluting unlike coal or pretty much everything else.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 06:32:02 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 12, 2018, 06:27:16 pmYes we can, but where are you going to get all of the energy to do so? Or do you plan to do this by breaking the laws? Laws of thermodynamics that is. At this time that's the only way we could do it.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 06:36:41 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 12, 2018, 06:27:16 pmNo, I disagree. There is no high energy density, net energy positive, easily transportable fuel substitute for oil/nat gas. I wish it were so. It's not - at least not with current population and energy usage patterns.Maybe with a much smaller global population and smaller energy usage - it could eventually happen.But even so - getting from A to B is the problem. Developing the infrastructure to totally transform our societal energy source/structure would require economic resources, cheap fossil fuels, and time we no longer have. If we would have started 40 years ago then we would have had a shot at a relatively painless transition. But we chose to borrow from the future instead.Jimmy Carter tried to turn us that direction.We know what happened next. People didn't want to hear it. Denial. Borrow from the future. Human nature.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 06:54:16 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 12, 2018, 06:36:41 pmNot quite.... The energy densit of Nuclear is far more greater than any other fuel source. Not sure of the exact number but shoudl be on the scale of a billion.We can use nuclear power for transporation. Been using it for decades for submarines and ships. USSR flew a nuclear powered aircraft. US was desinging one. Just one flaw both had, creww and passengers would get jetlag and radiation sickness.And let's not forget Ford had plans for a nuclear powered car. Can't recall any plans for a nuclear poered train. But can't think why it would not be possible.Both the US and Russia developed nuclear p

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 06:54:54 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 12, 2018, 06:24:55 pmYes we are.QuoteNope - not any more - not that's economically and energetically easy to extract. And we're using it at about 4x the rate that new reserves are being discovered. Economic growth depends on the availability of cheap fossil fuel. Without it, growth stagnates and massive amount of borrowing (requiring central bank intervention to promote) is required to keep the house of cards from collapsing. Geopolitics become unstable and wars are waged.QuoteYou're right. You don't understand. He understands very well the limitations of solar and other power sources. Read the individual posts on each energy source.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 07:00:25 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 12, 2018, 06:06:37 pmHe didn't fix Peak Everything. Nitrogen fertilizer we can make from air with modest amounts of energy, but the same can't be said for all the bulk materials we need to build stuff. Energy consumption to recover usable bulk materials is going to shoot up at about the same time as fossil fuel prices start to get off the rails.The best for humanity would be to stop breeding for a while, take care of the elderly with robots while we can still build them and avoid a much nastier die off down the line.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 07:13:41 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 12, 2018, 06:54:54 pmThe "we are running out of fossi fuels" line has been told for 50 years or more. So far it hasn't happened. If fossi fuels are running out why aren't prices going up? And why are we discovering new deposits? What's your evidence to support the claim this time?Guess that's why what the problem is with the table the guy is a phyusicst and doen't understand manufaturing. That's the problem with many physicits they they look at the theroy and not what's possible. We dont' have the resournces or manufacturing capabilities. Before the guy made his blog post he should have talked to the folks in the solar maufactuing industry. They would tell him they can't do what he's stating. Not even in 50 years.He's also not talking about the issue solar has caused. In England and Germany they had to burn more coal then they had to in the past because of solar. I'm in California and in the summer months we have back-outs because of solar generated electricity.You might want to do a bit more research to get the full story.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 07:27:06 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on April 12, 2018, 07:00:25 pmHaber and Bosh industrailized the nitrogen fixation process. Today 60% of the world if fed that's the Haber Bosh process, petrochemials for pest control and GMO.China tried popuation control. Didn't work, did it. The world popuation will peak at 10 million.https://youtu.be/hVimVzgtD6w

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 07:32:59 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 12, 2018, 07:27:06 pmIn some ways it did, in some ways it didn't. It gave them breathing room, in exchange for some problems down the line. I think it was a good trade off for them and I think India's trajectory will vindicate that with tragic consequences within my lifetime.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 07:33:29 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 12, 2018, 07:13:41 pmYou're demonstrating very simplistic thinking and a low knowledge base. The relationship between oil prices and demand is a complex system. But by and large prices have gone up. The problem is that high energy prices depress economies and demand falls. Cheap credit has allowed economically unviable unconventional oil extraction companies to stay afloat with large debts that will not be paid back. They are pumping out tight oil as fast as they can despite losing money just to service that debt - this has kept prices artificially low.As I mentioned - we are discovering new reserves but at a much lower rate than we are consuming current rescources. Also, most new reserves are really just theoretical since they cannot be extracted without large energy inputs (low energy return on energy invested.) and therefore it is likely it will never be economically sensible to extract these resources.There's much more to the story of fossil fuel reserves , the shale "revolution" , prices and their link to macroeconomic realities. I'd suggest you starthereandhereif you want to learn more.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 07:46:43 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on April 12, 2018, 07:32:59 pmCan you explain how it did and how it didn't. From what I understand the policy caused a huge imbalance in the population. There are is it 1,000 or is it 10,000 males for every female? So while this may have limited China's population then and now, the un-wed Chinese men are moving abroad to find wives which is causing immigration issues in other countries.But I'm no expert on this.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 07:59:20 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 12, 2018, 07:33:29 pmThank you for the references. Mind if I use my critical thinking skills here? The first reference is for a women with a background is as a casualty actuary, working in insurance forecasting. What does that have to do with the oil industry or geology?The second reference is for a consultant. Yes he is a geologist, but he's not an independent researcher. His services and opinions are for hire. No exactly an independent source of information. He also appears have a lot of interest in the stock prices for oil companies and that's what's in his tweets.These people definaly have opionins and it appears one could purchase those opinions.Do you have any referecnes to independlt research that's without a bias?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2018, 08:41:52 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 12, 2018, 07:59:20 pmActually, her background as an Actuary is very relevant to this analysis. In addition, she has many years experience and has published extensively on the relationship between macroeconomics and fossil fuel as well as other resources.Instead of attacking the messenger perhaps read the paper first.Here is a direct linkto the publication in the academic journalEnergy(Sorry forgot fee for that - but the entire academic paper is available inthe linkI originally provided). What specifically do you dispute in her analysis?QuoteApparently you are unfamiliar with this field. The reality is that most of the relevant research is done by oil and gas industry linked analysts. There are very few independent sources of analysis. Gail Tverberg is completely independent and Art Berman is considered one of the most independent and knowledgeable oil industry analysts.QuoteNonsense. Their opinions and analysis is available free of charge. Follow the links provided. If you have criticisms of their work - you might have more luck being taken seriously by looking at the data they present first than referencing what facts you dispute.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2018, 08:01:54 am
content: QuoteBecause the issues with solar are slowly fading away.Intermittency -> cheap massive batteries and thermal storage, coming now as seen in AustraliaInefficient heat generation -> better thermal gain for HVACTransport of energy -> big scale HVDCInefficiency -> not really relevant as the fuel cost is zeroPrice -> that issue has been solvedThe problem remaining in Europe with big scale solar are political issues:The best place to put a gigantic solar generation for europe is in the north african desert area, with HVDC links across europe (Like the old Project Desertec)With that there is year round daytime solar energy available with practically no shading.Unfortunately the region is politically unstable due to civil war and europe intervention in Lybia -> no way in hell will investors plant big infrastructure there in the actual conditions.Not sure how this is different in North America and Asia, but the situation is probably much better.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2018, 02:21:33 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 12, 2018, 06:32:02 pmJesus christ man, you have a real problem with reading and thinking. What laws? You place a solar panel, it generates 20+ times the energy over it's lifetime, than it takes to make it. No laws broken. You use the suns energy. You place more panels than what you need, and generate natural gas from the excess energy Use this magical thing, called chemistry and science. You confuse cost with price, and completely ignore economics of things.If you have trouble understanding basic concepts, we have nothing to talk about.

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2018, 03:54:31 pm
content: The problems with nuclear are mainly down to existing plant being an adaptation of Cold War weapon-making equipment. The PWR makes use of only a fraction of a percent of the energy in its fuel, and the fuel is then thrown away. That is why the waste is so long-lived. The fuel is largely unused. Also relevant to note that all of the major nuclear accidents except one were due to chemical rather than nuclear energy. Boiling water under pressure and zirconium fuel cladding are a bad combination, because once zirconium gets well alight it will burn underwater, or in steam. (The zirconium is necessary because it's one of the few structurally strong metals that doesn't capture neutrons.)A radically different reactor design such as the molten salt LFTR would eliminate both the fire/explosion risk and pollution problems. We know this can be done, because it was tested in the 1950's and it worked. It could also be substantially cheaper to build once production is under way, because it would not need the massive safety precautions of the PWR. Since it would use nearly all of the energy in the fuel the amount of hazardous waste would be far smaller, and the world's nuclear fuel reserves would last many times longer.As for fusion, it's criticized for taking so long to come to fruition, but when you consider that wind energy has been under development for nearly as long, and that global renewables expenditure is around half a trillion USD a year, whereas fusion research expenditure is a few billion.. I think you can see why that is.The real unknown in this is LENR, which shows great promise although no-one has yet built a commercial product (Well, besides Rossi's alleged sale of a few units.) If LENR does turn out to be viable then it's basically game over for every other energy source. Again, research is woefully under-funded for what could be an invention as significant as the wheel. No, make that more significant. Part of the problem is that there is no textbook theory to explain it, and the academics have a credibility barrier when it comes to anything they can't first of all describe in maths, and only then in hardware.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2018, 05:10:03 pm
content: MSRE wasn't actually build as a breeder. Despite all the cheerleading and "success", private industry spent decades trying to push breeders based on liquid sodium cooled fast reactors instead. I'm sure they had some good reasons, even though liquid sodium just proved to cause too many expensive accidents in the end (not disastrous, just expensive).Fast reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing have as of yet been nothing but commercial disasters.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2018, 06:24:16 pm
content: Question I've been asking about MSR is if they are so good and have been proven why are the billionaires and countries investing in fusion? The Chinese spent a lot of research money on MSR and found technological challenges they could not solve. They were suppose to have a MSR reactor up and running in a year or two, but they just cut funding as it was failing miserably.MSR may have 50 years ago been a viable technology, but witht the advances in technology it's no longer relivent.You really think batteries are a good long term "solution"? Hard to beleive.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2018, 06:41:52 pm
content: As I said, with back of the envelope calculations ocean based gravity storage looks doable.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2018, 08:22:21 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on April 24, 2018, 06:41:52 pmWe are already using all the fresh water based gravity storage we have.How would you do ocean based gravity storage?I live in the US and I'm not sure how ocean based gravity storage would work for people in the middle in of our country? Not sure where the height is either.Can you explain?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2018, 08:25:37 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 24, 2018, 08:22:21 pmConcrete with lots of aggregate on a steel cable.As for distances, for HVDC the US is not big.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2018, 09:01:19 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on April 24, 2018, 06:24:16 pmThey also invest in solar roadways or Scientology.Your reasoning is in the category of: Logical reasoning fallacy / Red herring fallacies / Argumentum ad crumenam.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 24, 2018, 09:22:40 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 24, 2018, 09:01:19 pmOnly way to know if something's going to work is to apply critical thinking skills and if it's plausible give it a try.The only reason solar roadways aren't working is because scientologists haven't blessed it to work.

author: Lionered
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2018, 12:05:41 pm
content: Shifting to full and pure renewable energy would require time and big investment. it will also kill big industry of the current energy that we use. however, it will have significantly good impact to the environment in the future.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2018, 02:52:13 pm
content: Quote from: Lionered on July 06, 2018, 12:05:41 pmDepends on your what you wan by full and pure renewable energy. Solar and wind will never provide a reliable source of electricity. Only practical solution is that’s clean and renewable is next gen nuclear.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2018, 05:00:28 pm
content: Just installing Solar and wind is not enough for a reliable energy supply - they need storage, quite a lot of storage. It is more about getting good storage that decides over the success or failure here.However nuclear also tends to have a reliability problem: to get any reasonable level of safety one needs to have the option to shut down the reactors in case a fault is found. This includes design faults - so to have a reliable supply one could not depend on a single type / family of reactors. To really keep the promised safety levels, the logical consequence of the Fukushima accidents would have been to at least temporary (until the units are fixed) shut down all similar reactors (essentially all BWRs) - but that was not done because of possible risk for grid breakdown in addition to the costs.In addition so far nuclear has turned out to be too expensive - even not counting for waste storage and sufficient insurance to cover possible accidents.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2018, 05:51:01 pm
content: Quote from: Kleinstein on July 06, 2018, 05:00:28 pmYou are mixing up current nuceear technology white Next Gen. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima accidents are impossibe as the technology is completely different. Uranium is not used so there is no danger of long term contamination. With Next Gen nuclear if there should be a Chernoby or Fukushima size accident accident in just 20-30 ears all of the radio-active istopses would have decayed away. Next Gen Nuclear is renewable also. Meaning we will never runout of nuclear fuel.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2018, 06:26:14 pm
content: Next gen nuclear is like next gen batteries and cold fusion, it’s always the solution and it’s always just a few years away...

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2018, 06:38:50 pm
content: Those next gen nuclear is so much in the planing stage, that it will likely never come. One also has to be careful with promises made - much is marketing speak to keep the research funding alive. So keep an eye on the. In that phase of development especially US researchers tend to promise essentially everything they can not easy prove to be wrong (some don't even seem to care if other prove them wrong).Even with fusion the decay of tritium would take more than 30 years to really get contamination down. Of cause I don't know the units ears for time so maybe 1 ear = 100 years.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2018, 07:16:55 pm
content: If Fukushima had been a sodium cooled reactor the results would have been far far worse.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2018, 09:15:59 pm
content: Thorium is dead technology at this time. If Next Gen Nuclear is just a few years away why is France building a facility? And isn’t hina building a next iteration nuclear reactor with the American Company Terra Power?

author: IanMacdonald
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2018, 10:18:51 pm
content: Thorium was tested in the 60's and worked very well indeed. Problem isn't the technology but the financial backers preferring the mainstream product to anything remotely unusual.The situation with cold fusion (LENR) is rather perplexing, after all if the results are as good as claimed then why isn't it already in commercial production? I suspect because although positive results have been had, replicating them reliably has proved difficult. Other thing is that many labs won't work on it because it's too controversial. It may well be the real game changer though once it's fully understood.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2018, 10:52:26 pm
content: Thorium needs a breeder and bootstrapping with uranium+plutonium any way ... for what purpose? Just breed the uranium and forget about the extra complexity, with breeding we aren't going to run out soon.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2018, 08:17:20 am
content: Quote from: IanMacdonald on July 07, 2018, 10:18:51 pm.You are correct Thorium was tested..... But worked well??? Don’t think so unles you call a partial melt down and the release of a radioactive gas into the atmosphere as working well.May make sense to you...... But not to me?

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2018, 08:35:29 am
content: Quote from: Marco on July 07, 2018, 10:52:26 pmAnd let’s not forget we already have a 750 year supply of enriched uranium we created. Seems rather silly not to use the fuel we already have. And since the Americans and Europeans aren’t willing to build the reactors China is. So now not only are “we” giving the technology to the Chinese we will be giving them the fuel to power it. So while the Ameraincans and Europeans screw around tying to figure out what to do while burning more coal the Chinese will be producing electricty with “our” fuel and “our” technology.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2018, 05:03:06 pm
content: Not reallyIn the next 20 Years, China plans to build :1200 GW of Solar plants20 GW of nuke plants.Yeah. They keep nukes around to get plutonium, they don't care about nuke power.

author: a59d1
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2018, 01:24:34 am
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on July 06, 2018, 05:51:01 pmThat isn't how half-life works. There will *always* be some fraction of the original radioisotope remaining as long as you have more than a single atom left. If the half-life of whatever these fantasy reactors use is less than a year, meaning you'd have about a millionth of the original radioisotope remaining after 20 years, you're dealing with a very very unstable isotope.