I've tried to maintain high hopes for nuclear fusion power for decades, but, for reasons I've never understood, the actual progress in its R&D is 'glacial'.... When I was a student at the Univ. of Texas at Austin WAY back in the mid-1970's, research work was ongoing at a Tokamak reactor on campus... that was almost (gasp!) 50 years ago! Why is fusion research always 'pushed to the back burner'... and from there, off the back of the stove and onto the floor...? Could it be because fusion reactors 'run' on two components found in sea water (deuterium and tritium)? . "How in hell do we stay rich on that?!"
My understanding is that the cost per joule is pretty cheap. You just have to take the long view over the upfront cost...and I mean the tech we are already using.
I'm guessing it doesn't work no matter how much research one does. Just like you can't make cars run on butterfly farts no matter how many butterflies you've got.
I have a small system, and mine is 2.8 KW (I also have a 2.4 KW residential wind turbine). Most people nowadays install 7-10 KW. Many with EVs are putting up close to 20 KW. I can power my home and take 2-3 trips (PHEV) per week into town on all-electric, and still achieve a surplus. That said the home is extremely efficient, and I hang the laundry in front of the passive solar windows to dry. You performed a good mathematical analysis. But the average trip should be pointed out. I live out a ways, and my round-trip is usually 35-40 miles. Full charges and full depletions should be rare for most EV owners.
Don’t forget the back-end costs. We all know how concrete develops cracks over time. Nuclear plants require constant expensive repairs. The stakes are too high to NOT respond immediately. And once the incredibly high-cost decommissioning is finally completed, the high level radioactive waste must be maintained and guarded for hundreds of thousands of years.
I cannot offer a complete analysis on of this. Those costs are definitely major factors. But I can say that the fuels used and thus the resulting waste, have been largely a political rather than financial decision or scientific decision or it would not be as bad as it is. Governments wanted material for missiles you see.
The risk of smuggled Plutonium, and its use for Nuclear bombs is real and concerning, but half lives of many other radioactive man-made isotopes are also problematic. Current storage is at each nuclear plant site. Many of these wastes must be secured for hundreds of thousands of years. Currently containment is rated for 200 years.
Which is why the world is looking at the Thorium option. China has one Thorium rector up and running and the world is watching to see what might happen - good or ill
Has it ever occurred to you that that's why it's called "The Great Solar Challenge"? He's referring to amounts of energy. You're referring to distance in a purpose built vehicle that uses as little power as possible to move that distance. A vehicle that's useless for anything else besides distance. Sorry, the Great Solar Challenge has been going on for decades and hasn't produced much that's useful in the real world yet.
I’m still waiting for that guarantee that no major earthquake epicentre will occur for hundreds of thousands of years, near the many worldwide storage sites for the 400,000 TONS of stored High Level radioactive waste. Let’s focus on JUST ONE of these aging facilities. https://www.irishtimes.com/world/uk...ly-significant-consequences-guardian-reports/ Sellafield nuclear site has leak that could have ‘potentially significant consequences’, Guardian reports Concerns over safety at the crumbling building, as well as cracks in a reservoir of toxic sludge known as B30, have caused diplomatic tensions with countries including the US, Norway and Ireland Sellafield, Europe’s most hazardous nuclear site, has a worsening leak from a huge silo of radioactive waste that could pose a risk to the public, the Guardian has reported. Concerns over safety at the crumbling building, as well as cracks in a reservoir of toxic sludge known as B30, have caused diplomatic tensions with countries including the US, Norway and Ireland, which fear Sellafield has failed to get a grip of the problems.
You need to stop relying on outdated stories. Sellafield nuclear plant radioactive leak 'slowing down' BBC https://www.bbc.com › news › articles Sep 17, 2024 — A longstanding radioactive leak at a nuclear plant's storage silo appears to have slowed down, a report has said. Sellafield, decommissioning, fuel and waste Office for Nuclear Regulation https://www.onr.org.uk › our-work › what-we-regulate Mar 24, 2024 — The site processes and stores more radioactive material per square metre than any other site in Europe. There are over 1000 nuclear facilities ...
I’m aware of that. And you think this is a good thing? After two years, the best they can do is “slightly slow down” the radioactive leak. This not only demonstrates the breadth of this problem, but also the entire ridiculous notion that these sites are impervious for hundreds of thousands of years!
No question, this is a lesson in efficiency. I talked about Aptera in the past, who actually market a solar car. But it’s impractical - 40 miles of range on a perfect solar day and a one seater. When I created this thread, I wasn’t referring to DIRECT powered solar cars, but systems combined with either home renewables or community renewables. This link discusses four realistic options. And yes they are practical. I can affirmatively state that, because I employ one of them. The link goes into more detail, but the cited paragraph provides a good overall summary. https://www.wri.org/insights/4-emerging-ways-pair-electric-vehicles-and-renewable-energy Acknowledging this, several utilities, automakers, cities and EV charging providers across the U.S. are rolling out new pilot programs and services that allow residential and commercial customers to use renewable energy for their EVs electricity needs, and charge at times that help integrate more renewable energy sources on the grid.
To make that statement implies that you have a scientific knowledge of the subject matter. Please explain the difference of alpha-emitter isotopes from gamma-emitter isotopes, along with their potential effects on human health.
The main difference between alpha-emitter isotopes and gamma-emitter isotopes is the type of radiation they emit, which has different properties and health hazards: Alpha particles Emitted by alpha-emitter isotopes, these particles are large, heavy, and positively charged. They travel up to an inch in the air and are easily blocked by a sheet of paper or the outer layer of skin. While not a major external hazard, alpha particles can be harmful if inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed into the bloodstream. Gamma rays Emitted by gamma-emitter isotopes, these rays are photons of energy with no mass or charge. They can travel many yards in air and are highly penetrating, able to pass through a body and damage internal organs and DNA. Gamma rays are considered the most dangerous form of radiation and are a hazard to the entire body. Other types of radiation include beta particles, which are smaller than alpha particles but can travel several feet in air. Beta particles can be stopped by a layer of clothing or a few inches of plastic. Alpha particles generally carry more energy than gamma or beta particles. They deposit that energy very quickly while passing through tissue. Alpha particles can be stopped by a thin layer of light material, such as a sheet of paper. Alpha particles cannot penetrate the outer, dead layer of skin.Feb 22, 2024 Properties of Radioactive Isotopes: An Overview - CDC RADIATION HEALTH BASICS County of Monmouth https://www.co.monmouth.nj.us › documents PDF Alpha particles are the most harmful internal hazard as compared with gamma rays and beta particles. Radioactive materials that emit alpha and beta particles ...