As defined by: the safest and most productive course of action with consideration given to human and natural resources, the changing environment, future needs and a spirit of stewardship, may not be the a conservative stance at all but a radical and progressive departure from the status quo.
Energy certainly comes to mind as a case in point. Coal? Not yet. Sequestering carbon remains a challenge and likely neutralizes the cost advantages. Furthermore, coal requires central generation and long distribution lines that are wasteful. Methane promises and delivers advantages over oil due to higher specific energy and relatively less carbon. Hydrogen even more so but requires other sources of energy to generate. Hydrogen as a gas holds less energy per volume unless liquified. Its greatest efficiency results from electrical generation as in a fuel cell. It is expensive.
Nuclear power may be that radical departure from conventional wisdom. The http://www.adn.com/front/story/">Galena, Alaska City Council has approved a 10-megawatt 4S nuclear generator made by Toshiba. Fully encased in concrete with no moving parts, the unit is shipped in, buried and produces energy for 30 years maintenance free. As the proposition stands the output exceeds the community needs and provides energy at about half the cost of diesel, as little as 6 cents per kilowatt hour. Other small self-contained nuclear generators made in China and South Africa generate hydrogen as a by-product of the cooling process. Disposal of spent units may still be a challenge. Ultimately we need a means of converting all of the matter to energy. That may be a while.
Energy certainly comes to mind as a case in point. Coal? Not yet. Sequestering carbon remains a challenge and likely neutralizes the cost advantages. Furthermore, coal requires central generation and long distribution lines that are wasteful. Methane promises and delivers advantages over oil due to higher specific energy and relatively less carbon. Hydrogen even more so but requires other sources of energy to generate. Hydrogen as a gas holds less energy per volume unless liquified. Its greatest efficiency results from electrical generation as in a fuel cell. It is expensive.
Nuclear power may be that radical departure from conventional wisdom. The http://www.adn.com/front/story/">Galena, Alaska City Council has approved a 10-megawatt 4S nuclear generator made by Toshiba. Fully encased in concrete with no moving parts, the unit is shipped in, buried and produces energy for 30 years maintenance free. As the proposition stands the output exceeds the community needs and provides energy at about half the cost of diesel, as little as 6 cents per kilowatt hour. Other small self-contained nuclear generators made in China and South Africa generate hydrogen as a by-product of the cooling process. Disposal of spent units may still be a challenge. Ultimately we need a means of converting all of the matter to energy. That may be a while.
Comments