Nuc and desal

**Tracy Chimenti** · 02-13-2009, 04:29 PM

Just consider for a moment the clean air, the creation of clean water and massive amounts of electricity to power the new fleets of electric cars. The water that could be readjudicated to the Sac Valley/San Joaqin watershed for fish and their nurseries if monster municiplalities could swap-out their water sources. Jobs, new technology to power 75% of our transportation in 20-years, secured by subsidized electric rates to the factories and facilities. This alone can be justified by reduced reliance on places that are killing some of our country's finest. I am getting axious. At this time I'm convinced it's the answer. Just don't think we can get the train stopped. It took us about 60-years and a lot of dynamite to get here.

I think the F-18's, B2's and F-22 Raptors will have to run on 'ol ethel. Does anyone know what "commericial" and defense-related liquid-fuel demand represents in our national transportation energy total? If it's under 15%, it's also justifiable.

**Darian** · 02-13-2009, 07:52 PM

There's some momentum building up for a re-start of nuclear power programs; if I'm reading interest in energy and mining (uranium producers) stocks correctly. The main obstruction is, of course, the federal government whose ban on new nuclear power generation facilities remains in affect until the waste disposal problem is addressed. All of the storage facilities (Battle mountain, etc.) proposed by the feds have been loudly opposed (correctly

). One of the alternatives to underground storage is re-processing of nuclear waste. It supposedly results in reduction in residual radiation levels and recovery of side products (plutonium)....

I'd say that the amount of Jet fuel required for air ops (peacetime/wartime) is high in relation to the rest of our usage. Jet fuel (used to be called JP-4), is about the same octane as kerosene (....a slight exaggeration but....

) Given that air superiority is imperative in most armed conflicts (Kosovo, Iraq, etc.), the expense results in lives (ours) saved on the ground; probably justified.... (Lots of room for political comment here but I'm not going to indulge.

)

How about the combination of armed forces and civil air usage. Those big civil airline jets use a bunch of fuel with sometimes less than full capacity, passenger wise. Wonder about air freight capacities....

Of course, all fuel used in transportation of goods or people requires burning of fossil fuels. Wonder what the world total use (in terms of gallons) is for a day, month or year

**Phil Synhorst** · 02-13-2009, 08:26 PM

If I have not been mislead, our Military is the largest consumer of petro products in the world.

**Tracy Chimenti** · 02-13-2009, 10:56 PM

Reading a book by Gwyneth Cravens now that said the waste with the longest half-life has the weakest radio-active power-- "background" radiation level. Strontium and cesium are two toxic undersireables in the waste, but they are in such minute quantities they could be no more dangerous in an epoxy lined cask on a concrete slab under a mountain than a farmer's tank of anhydrous amonia that he parks in front of his barn and uses for fertilization.

**Ed Wahl** · 02-13-2009, 11:56 PM

'Course, when the farmer used up his tank of anhydrous amonia he's just left with an inert empty tank.

**Tracy Chimenti** · 02-14-2009, 12:43 AM

co2 and other toxics and greenhouse gasses were released in then mean time. You ought to see the amount of energy it takes to make the stuff.

**wjorg** · 02-14-2009, 02:09 PM

"Methanol Economy" read it.........

**Tracy Chimenti** · 02-14-2009, 07:08 PM

... but I must admit, I have capitualted to the climate changer perspective, so greenhouse gasses are one thing I'm seeing here. It is safer than gasoline, has about half the power, but when mixed with gasoline, it has promise in hybrids.

I bet you could fly an F22 raptor with it!