William tucker has a great article on nuclear energy and why it is superior to fossil fuels and other alternatives. Fossil fuels are concentrated solar energy from fossilized plants and animals that lived long ago. Burning coal is approximately twice as dense in terms of energy compared to burning wood, and oil or natural gas is twice as dense as coal. Wind power, solar and other "renewables" are actually less dense than wood - by a factor of more than 10. Sunlight reaching the ground on a squre yard of the Earth's surface is only enough to power a single 100 watt light bulb, so thousands of acres of land would be required to replace even one conventional power plant. Of course, it isn't sunny all the time either. Wind faces the same issues - the wind isn't always blowing and enormous amounts of land are required to replace a conventional power facility. Biofuels use up around 30% of one of our primary food crops and replace only 3% of our oil needs.
As for nuclear power, read it and weep.
"Remember, when we talked about the energy density of fossil fuels and renewables we talked in factors of 2 thru 50. Do you know what the density factor is for uranium? It’s 2 million. A pound of uranium gives you 2 million times as much energy as a pound of coal. That means you can run a whole city for a week with a lump of uranium you can hold in one hand. In fact a 110-car “unit train” of coal has more energy in the uranium traces in the coal than in the coal itself.
Let’s see what this means in practice. The average 1,000-megawatt coal plant must be fed by a unit train arriving at the plant every day. Such trains now leave Cheyenne, Wyoming every 12 minutes carrying coal from the Powder River Basin to power plants from Nevada to Arkansas. More than half the nation’s rail freight is now coal. In fact, it’s straining the whole infrastructure and we may have to build new rail lines before long.
Now lets’ look at nuclear. A 1000-MW nuclear reactor is refueled by a single tractor-trailer arriving at the plant once every eighteen months. The fuel rods are only mildly radioactive and can be handled with gloves. Over their four-and-a-half-year life cycle those fuel rods will put zero greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, the coal plant across town will spew 3 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That’s why we have a problem of global warming."
2
How in the world is this possible? e=mc , that's how. A very tiny amount of matter can be transformed into a great deal of energy. Chemical reactions, such as burning fossil fuels, occur in the outer electron shell of the atom. Electrons are around 1/1800ths of an atomic mass, the rest lies in the nucleus - thus the amazing amount of energy available in "splitting atoms". The end result is that nuclear is two to twenty times less less impactive to the environment.
What about the dangers, you ask? Well, the uranium used in nuclear reactors is the 235 variety, while the most common occuring naturally is the 238 isotope. Only .7% of natural uranium is -235, so a difficult refining process is necessary in order to obtain the necessary quantities to sustain a nuclear reaction, which is 3% in a conventional reactor. If you want to build a nuclear bomb, the necessary percentage is much, much higher - in excess of 90%. So there is no chance of your local power station going up in a mushroom cloud.
What about nuclear waste, you ask? That term is realistically a misnomer - there is no such thing. Most of the material (95%) that comes out of a nuclear reactor is completely harmless U-235 that occurs naturally and the other 5% was recycled until the Carter Administration decided to outlaw it. Many of the minor actinides (2%) are actually useful in medical applications, but we import all of ours from Canada now because we can't reprocess our own nucelar fuel. The French also make big moeny selling their reprossessed nuclear fuel, exporting it all over Europe and to Japan.
"Almost everything in a spent fuel rod can be recycled. The U-235 can be used again for fuel. So can the plutonium. Among the fission products and minor actinides there are lots of useful isotopes used in medicine and industrial procedures. Forty percent of all medical procedures now involve some radioactive isotope and nuclear medicine is a $250-billion industry."
All of France's nuclear waste from 25 years of producing 75% of its electricity by nculear power is stored in a single room in the basement of The Hague. One reason we got out of the reprossessing field was the fear of nuclear prolifieration, but that is almost impossible - the vast majority of the plutonium that results from commercial reactors can't be weaponized. It takes a special reactor to create the Plutonium-239 that is used to make a nuclear weapon, which is exactly what the Russians were up to a Chernobyl. Nuclear engineers know all this, but the debate has been dominated by the environmental lobby so pervasively that all the facts have been shoved under the rug. It sort of reminds one of the "settled science" of the Climate change myth, doesn't it?
Showing posts with label Science - Alternative energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science - Alternative energy. Show all posts
Monday, October 20, 2008
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Canada's Oil Boom
MSNBC has an interesting piece on the development of the Canadian oil industry, and also notes that many people don't realize that Canada is the US's leading external oil supplier. The high prices of conventional oil supplies are making unconventional sources such as Canada's oil sands economical to exploit.
"Here in Alberta — a once-desolate outpost 800 miles north of the U.S. border that has gone from ghost town to boom town — you won't see any spouting geysers, or traditional pumps drilling for oil deep underground. Oil — trapped in dark sticky sand — sits just below the surface of the earth waiting to be mined. Brad Bellows, a spokesman for oil company Suncor, explained that first step is to claw the oil mixed with sand out of the earth, using some monster machines."
The oil sands of Alberta stretch for over 50,000 miles and contain more oil than is found in even leading conventional producer Saudi Arabia. Canada's Suncor took a large gamble over a decade ago, when oil prices were far lower, to develop the technology that allows these resources to be produced today. Oil sands are difficult to produce, requiring large scale mining operations and large inputs of water and natural gas in the extraction process. It also releases more carbon dioxide than conventional oil operations, but Suncor and other firms are seeking ways to reduce these releases, and Suncor has cut its own emissions in half over the last decade. Canada, a Kyoto treaty signatory, is just as unlikely to meet its treaty commitments as most other signatories.
The success with oil sands is making oil firms also examine another unconventional oil resource, oil shale, found in large quantities in the American West. Some estimates are that up to 7 million barrels a day could be produced in the US by 2035. US oil firm Shell has invested $200 million in researching oil shale production methods, and thinks that pumping hot water deep into these deposits could reduce the problem of converting the shale into conventional oil.
"Here in Alberta — a once-desolate outpost 800 miles north of the U.S. border that has gone from ghost town to boom town — you won't see any spouting geysers, or traditional pumps drilling for oil deep underground. Oil — trapped in dark sticky sand — sits just below the surface of the earth waiting to be mined. Brad Bellows, a spokesman for oil company Suncor, explained that first step is to claw the oil mixed with sand out of the earth, using some monster machines."
The oil sands of Alberta stretch for over 50,000 miles and contain more oil than is found in even leading conventional producer Saudi Arabia. Canada's Suncor took a large gamble over a decade ago, when oil prices were far lower, to develop the technology that allows these resources to be produced today. Oil sands are difficult to produce, requiring large scale mining operations and large inputs of water and natural gas in the extraction process. It also releases more carbon dioxide than conventional oil operations, but Suncor and other firms are seeking ways to reduce these releases, and Suncor has cut its own emissions in half over the last decade. Canada, a Kyoto treaty signatory, is just as unlikely to meet its treaty commitments as most other signatories.
The success with oil sands is making oil firms also examine another unconventional oil resource, oil shale, found in large quantities in the American West. Some estimates are that up to 7 million barrels a day could be produced in the US by 2035. US oil firm Shell has invested $200 million in researching oil shale production methods, and thinks that pumping hot water deep into these deposits could reduce the problem of converting the shale into conventional oil.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Solar Future?
Arnold Kling over at TCS looks at some of our current and potential energy sources, and some of the challenges and opportunities they might meet in our future.
He points out the fact that at the present rate of increase, solar powered electricity generatioon is doubling every two years. This means in twenty years, conceivably all of our power could come from solar - except for the dirty little fact that this current rate of generation is heavily, and I mean heavily, subsidized by our well intentioned but ultimately moronic bureaucrats. He points out that if solar is to ever become our primary energy source, it will have to become far more economical. It is probably possible for it to eventually be a major energy source but only in the very long term.
Our current hydrocarbon resources, coal, oil and natural gas, are also the currently the most economical - despite the best efforts of the environmental lobby to make them increasingly expensive domestically, and the depressing economic and security effects that the control of petroleum resources by dictatorships has on their supply and production. While their short term future is a certainty, their long term prognosis is probably dim as long as these two political forces continue to grow in strength.
Nuclear faces many of the same political opposition but the effects of these forces are weakening, both in response to the "science" of global warming and the possible impact of a shift from a primarily gasoline fueled transportation network to one powered by electricity. These might achieve the economic and political tipping point necessary for new plant construction in this industry. They key here will be the continued development of batteries capable of powering a vehicle with the same theoretical range as one powered by conventional gasoline, or around 4-500 miles or more. In addition, new plant designs with a decreased or eliminated risk of radiation release will also help convince an ignorant and skeptical public of nuclear's potential.
Kling also examines the possibility of biofuels, which are also being heavily subsidized before economic viability. However, he thinks the potential with this technology isn't so much with fuels as it is with the creation of organisms that can take advantage of the sun to generate electricity directly. Conventional bio sources like ethanol, in addition to requiring heavy subsidization, also cannot reach the necessary scale to replace convetional sources - although I say they can help bridge the gap to the time when these might be replaced.
In addition, he explains his reasoning behind leaving off one of the other oft mentioned possibilities, hydrogen. He doesn't believe a distribution network that can parallel the conventional gasoline distribution can be achieved, although he does not discount the potential that might be found in hydrogen fuel cell technology. I tend to agree with him that hydrogen poses some substantial challenges, but some recent breakthroughs I've discovered (and mentioned in previous posts) might make hydrogen a player with the electrical powered transportation transformation that appears to on its way.
He points out the fact that at the present rate of increase, solar powered electricity generatioon is doubling every two years. This means in twenty years, conceivably all of our power could come from solar - except for the dirty little fact that this current rate of generation is heavily, and I mean heavily, subsidized by our well intentioned but ultimately moronic bureaucrats. He points out that if solar is to ever become our primary energy source, it will have to become far more economical. It is probably possible for it to eventually be a major energy source but only in the very long term.
Our current hydrocarbon resources, coal, oil and natural gas, are also the currently the most economical - despite the best efforts of the environmental lobby to make them increasingly expensive domestically, and the depressing economic and security effects that the control of petroleum resources by dictatorships has on their supply and production. While their short term future is a certainty, their long term prognosis is probably dim as long as these two political forces continue to grow in strength.
Nuclear faces many of the same political opposition but the effects of these forces are weakening, both in response to the "science" of global warming and the possible impact of a shift from a primarily gasoline fueled transportation network to one powered by electricity. These might achieve the economic and political tipping point necessary for new plant construction in this industry. They key here will be the continued development of batteries capable of powering a vehicle with the same theoretical range as one powered by conventional gasoline, or around 4-500 miles or more. In addition, new plant designs with a decreased or eliminated risk of radiation release will also help convince an ignorant and skeptical public of nuclear's potential.
Kling also examines the possibility of biofuels, which are also being heavily subsidized before economic viability. However, he thinks the potential with this technology isn't so much with fuels as it is with the creation of organisms that can take advantage of the sun to generate electricity directly. Conventional bio sources like ethanol, in addition to requiring heavy subsidization, also cannot reach the necessary scale to replace convetional sources - although I say they can help bridge the gap to the time when these might be replaced.
In addition, he explains his reasoning behind leaving off one of the other oft mentioned possibilities, hydrogen. He doesn't believe a distribution network that can parallel the conventional gasoline distribution can be achieved, although he does not discount the potential that might be found in hydrogen fuel cell technology. I tend to agree with him that hydrogen poses some substantial challenges, but some recent breakthroughs I've discovered (and mentioned in previous posts) might make hydrogen a player with the electrical powered transportation transformation that appears to on its way.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Coal Gassification: Challenge & Opportunity
ScienceDaily has a good article on our most prevalent US energy source - coal. Coal gets a bad name in many circles, but is our most abundant and economical source of energy and supplies us with approximately half of our national energy needs. The US has the most abundant coal resources of any nation on the planet. Of course, coal gets its bad name from some of the issues that come from burning it - namely, some not so nice emmissions, some of which have been addressed with technological innovations such as scrubbers, while other types of issues still need some work. There are plans in the works to address quite a number of these by utilizing the concept of coal gassification and sequestering the carbon dioxide released from burning.
""Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen and other valuable energy products," said George Muntean, staff scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
"Gasification provides significant economic and environmental benefits to conventional coal power plants," Muntean said. Rather than burning coal directly, gasification breaks down coal into its basic chemical constituents using high temperature and pressure. Because of this, carbon dioxide can be captured from a gas stream far more easily than from the smokestacks of a conventional coal plant.
"If we plan to use our domestic supply of coal to produce energy, and do so in a way that does not intensify atmospheric CO2 concentrations, gasification is critical," Muntean said. "It has the potential to enable carbon capture and sequestration technologies and play an important role in securing domestic sources of transportation fuels."
The biggest technical hurdle in introducing this technology is in the lifespan of the refractories that line the gassification chamber, which are expensive (a million plus $ a pop) and difficult to replace (3-6 weeks of plant downtime). With a 12-16 month lifespan, this simply isn't economically feasible, but some of the research work at PNNL might expand this period up to three years. Reducing the capital costs of refractories by nearly half could wind up making gassification not only economically feasible, but profitable.
In a related note, the first commercial plant utilzing carbon sequestration technology is being built near Sweetwater Texas by Tenaska, Inc - an Omaha firm. (news release here)Up to 90% of the CO2 will be captured and sold to oil firms, which will pump it into the Permian Basin oil fields, allowing additional domestic black gold to be extracted. Talk about a win-win solution!
""Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen and other valuable energy products," said George Muntean, staff scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
"Gasification provides significant economic and environmental benefits to conventional coal power plants," Muntean said. Rather than burning coal directly, gasification breaks down coal into its basic chemical constituents using high temperature and pressure. Because of this, carbon dioxide can be captured from a gas stream far more easily than from the smokestacks of a conventional coal plant.
"If we plan to use our domestic supply of coal to produce energy, and do so in a way that does not intensify atmospheric CO2 concentrations, gasification is critical," Muntean said. "It has the potential to enable carbon capture and sequestration technologies and play an important role in securing domestic sources of transportation fuels."
The biggest technical hurdle in introducing this technology is in the lifespan of the refractories that line the gassification chamber, which are expensive (a million plus $ a pop) and difficult to replace (3-6 weeks of plant downtime). With a 12-16 month lifespan, this simply isn't economically feasible, but some of the research work at PNNL might expand this period up to three years. Reducing the capital costs of refractories by nearly half could wind up making gassification not only economically feasible, but profitable.
In a related note, the first commercial plant utilzing carbon sequestration technology is being built near Sweetwater Texas by Tenaska, Inc - an Omaha firm. (news release here)Up to 90% of the CO2 will be captured and sold to oil firms, which will pump it into the Permian Basin oil fields, allowing additional domestic black gold to be extracted. Talk about a win-win solution!
Monday, November 26, 2007
"Peak Oil" Myth Debunked Again
via Canadian (?) Globe and Mail, a very illustrative article reporting on a US government report again debunking the "Peak Oil" myth that the world is running out of petroleum. (HT: McQ of QandO fame) The real facts are that there is more oil left in the ground in North America than we've removed in all the years of pumping oil out of the ground.
"On the one hand, it says, the country has already consumed, in 150 years, 446 billion barrels of its own fossil-fuel endowment. On the other hand, it says, the country has 8.59 trillion barrels left - or more "oil equivalent" than the rest of the world combined. More than 95 per cent of America's oil reserves, in other words, are still in the ground."
The key here is the word "oil equivalents" - resources like oil shale and tar sands from which black gold can be extracted, albeit at a higher price than sweet light Texas crude. There are 3.5 trillion barrels of such resources in Canada alone, and the US also has a 260 billion ton supply of coal, which can be (and has been since the WW2 - note Nazi Germany) liquified as an unconventional fuel supply economically at world oil prices as low as 40-50 dollars a barrel. The US coal alone could supply the US electricity needs for the next 250 years at the current usage of 1.1 billion tons per year. Who compiled the report, you ask? Your US Congress via the much maligned Energy Act of 2005, that's who.
"Mandated by the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005, the 11-member Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force submitted its final report in September. Its members include the U.S. secretary of energy, the secretary of defence and the governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, who was in Alberta just last week checking out oil sands technology partnerships."
The report indicated that the US could supply over a third of its fuel needs from these unconventional sources by 2035, and the US military could switch its 300+ million barrel a day fuel habit to these sources by as early as 2011. The report indicates the US could save as much as $130 billion a year in import costs by swwitching to these oil alternatives, reducing imports to around 3.65 million barrels a day, one quarter of current levels.
"On the one hand, it says, the country has already consumed, in 150 years, 446 billion barrels of its own fossil-fuel endowment. On the other hand, it says, the country has 8.59 trillion barrels left - or more "oil equivalent" than the rest of the world combined. More than 95 per cent of America's oil reserves, in other words, are still in the ground."
The key here is the word "oil equivalents" - resources like oil shale and tar sands from which black gold can be extracted, albeit at a higher price than sweet light Texas crude. There are 3.5 trillion barrels of such resources in Canada alone, and the US also has a 260 billion ton supply of coal, which can be (and has been since the WW2 - note Nazi Germany) liquified as an unconventional fuel supply economically at world oil prices as low as 40-50 dollars a barrel. The US coal alone could supply the US electricity needs for the next 250 years at the current usage of 1.1 billion tons per year. Who compiled the report, you ask? Your US Congress via the much maligned Energy Act of 2005, that's who.
"Mandated by the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005, the 11-member Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force submitted its final report in September. Its members include the U.S. secretary of energy, the secretary of defence and the governor of Colorado, Bill Ritter, who was in Alberta just last week checking out oil sands technology partnerships."
The report indicated that the US could supply over a third of its fuel needs from these unconventional sources by 2035, and the US military could switch its 300+ million barrel a day fuel habit to these sources by as early as 2011. The report indicates the US could save as much as $130 billion a year in import costs by swwitching to these oil alternatives, reducing imports to around 3.65 million barrels a day, one quarter of current levels.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Possible Breakthrough In Hydrogen Tech
via ScienceDaily, the University of Virginia is reporting a novel breakthrough in the materials used in the storage of hydrogen. The new material can store twice as much hydrogen as previously used materials, and store the fuel at room temperature.
“In terms of hydrogen absorption, these materials could prove a world record,” Adam B. Phillips of the University of Virginia said. “Most materials today absorb only 7 to 8 percent of hydrogen by weight, and only at cryogenic [extremely low] temperatures. Our materials absorb hydrogen up to 14 percent by weight at room temperature. By absorbing twice as much hydrogen, the new materials could help make the dream of a hydrogen economy come true.”
The promise of a hyrdogen economy has long proven elusive due to the issues involved in the storage and transportation of the energy source. This new material could have a considerable impact on reformulating the economic dynamics of a hdrogen based energy industry. Huge news.
“In terms of hydrogen absorption, these materials could prove a world record,” Adam B. Phillips of the University of Virginia said. “Most materials today absorb only 7 to 8 percent of hydrogen by weight, and only at cryogenic [extremely low] temperatures. Our materials absorb hydrogen up to 14 percent by weight at room temperature. By absorbing twice as much hydrogen, the new materials could help make the dream of a hydrogen economy come true.”
The promise of a hyrdogen economy has long proven elusive due to the issues involved in the storage and transportation of the energy source. This new material could have a considerable impact on reformulating the economic dynamics of a hdrogen based energy industry. Huge news.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Hydrogen Power Storage Getting Close
via ScienceDaily, Scottish scientists are making some progress towards developing an improved organic polymer that could store hydrogen, allowing for the development of a hydrogen powered vehicle. For any alternate vehicle energy source, the goal is to develop a storage capacity that roughly equates to the 3-400 miles of travel that the current gasoline tank provides in automobiles.
"Professors Neil McKeown from the School of Chemistry together with Peter Budd of the University of Manchester and David Book from the University of Birmingham can now report the creation of an organic polymer able to store around three per cent hydrogen by weight.
The figure is almost double the amount of hydrogen the group’s preliminary polymers could store last year, and offers hope of producing an organic polymer in the future capable of storing enough hydrogen to successfully power a vehicle."
The capability that this 3 percent figure provides in energy storage is about half of the goal or around 150 miles of travel. The trick that is challenging the researchers is to create a material that is both porous in order to store the quantity of hydrogen needed but that also has the proper sized small "holes" for the tiny hydrogen molecules to fit into snuggly.
"Professors Neil McKeown from the School of Chemistry together with Peter Budd of the University of Manchester and David Book from the University of Birmingham can now report the creation of an organic polymer able to store around three per cent hydrogen by weight.
The figure is almost double the amount of hydrogen the group’s preliminary polymers could store last year, and offers hope of producing an organic polymer in the future capable of storing enough hydrogen to successfully power a vehicle."
The capability that this 3 percent figure provides in energy storage is about half of the goal or around 150 miles of travel. The trick that is challenging the researchers is to create a material that is both porous in order to store the quantity of hydrogen needed but that also has the proper sized small "holes" for the tiny hydrogen molecules to fit into snuggly.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Issues with "Renewable" Energy
Great article by William Tucker at The American Spectator about the myth of "renewable" energy. Energy isn't "renewable", even the Sun will run out of energy someday. The First Law of Thermodynamics posits that energy can neither be created or destroyed, it merely changes form. Great, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics posits that when energy being used to accomplish work, some of it becomes unrecoverable - to things like friction.
"In the process, however, some of the energy inevitably becomes inaccessible as "waste" or low-grade heat. Once dispersed, this energy achieves a state of high disorder or entropy. It cannot be reused, renewed, or recycled because it would take more energy to reassemble it than could be recovered."
Tucker further points out that when people talk of "renewable" energy sources, what they really mean are "inexhaustable" sources of energy. In effect, most sources of energy are related to the sun. Obviously solar power comes from the sun but also drives the water cycle, the wind, and is ultimately responsible for plant growth and thus most conventional fossil fuel energy sources derived from the breakdown of plants into petroleum and natural gas.
Solar has its uses - it is available when the need is the greatest, hot summer days, and could definitely aid us ona small scale. However, it doesn't really arrive in truly useful amounts, the kind that could be used for industrial scale purposes. Of course, we use fossil fuels for much of that, but waiting millions of years for these to be replenished isn't practical either, and there are those pesky byproducts, pollution and carbon dioxide. Biofuels aren't really a great answer either, because they compete with the alternate use of the crop as food, and buring them also releases those same pesky byproducts.
The one resource available to us that is nearly inexhaustable is that of the planet itself. Both geothermal energy and its artificially contrived corollary, nuclear power, are derived from the natural (or forced) breakdown of radiactive elements like uranium and thorium. The heat derived from these sources is transferred to water and used to drive electrical turbines. This source of energy is the only one known not dependent on the sun or solar energy stored in carbon bonds, thus it does not releasing any carbon into the atmosphere when utilized. Nuclear power is definitely the most ecofriendly of all conventional and non-conventional sources. Of course, it is also one of the most vilvified by certain segments of society, unfortunately.
"In the process, however, some of the energy inevitably becomes inaccessible as "waste" or low-grade heat. Once dispersed, this energy achieves a state of high disorder or entropy. It cannot be reused, renewed, or recycled because it would take more energy to reassemble it than could be recovered."
Tucker further points out that when people talk of "renewable" energy sources, what they really mean are "inexhaustable" sources of energy. In effect, most sources of energy are related to the sun. Obviously solar power comes from the sun but also drives the water cycle, the wind, and is ultimately responsible for plant growth and thus most conventional fossil fuel energy sources derived from the breakdown of plants into petroleum and natural gas.
Solar has its uses - it is available when the need is the greatest, hot summer days, and could definitely aid us ona small scale. However, it doesn't really arrive in truly useful amounts, the kind that could be used for industrial scale purposes. Of course, we use fossil fuels for much of that, but waiting millions of years for these to be replenished isn't practical either, and there are those pesky byproducts, pollution and carbon dioxide. Biofuels aren't really a great answer either, because they compete with the alternate use of the crop as food, and buring them also releases those same pesky byproducts.
The one resource available to us that is nearly inexhaustable is that of the planet itself. Both geothermal energy and its artificially contrived corollary, nuclear power, are derived from the natural (or forced) breakdown of radiactive elements like uranium and thorium. The heat derived from these sources is transferred to water and used to drive electrical turbines. This source of energy is the only one known not dependent on the sun or solar energy stored in carbon bonds, thus it does not releasing any carbon into the atmosphere when utilized. Nuclear power is definitely the most ecofriendly of all conventional and non-conventional sources. Of course, it is also one of the most vilvified by certain segments of society, unfortunately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
