I know we would all prefer if BFR work but if it doesn't what other solution there is?
The majority of the world use coal as an energy source and the reserve are good for still a good period of time.
I saw the other day a report on using plasma arc technology or plasma torch to burn city waste. The result where cleaner output than a standard incinerator reduce quantity of solid waste and positive energy return. Would it be possible to use the same technology with some modification for coal?
The result : Better burning rate of coal? Lower gas emission. Since the toxic part will go 2 way gas or solid. Gas is usually easier to remove toxic part. The solid result depending on the content could be reuse for other stuff. It could also help lower the water requirement compared to as standard coal plant and especially for a "clean coal" plant who use water to clean the coal from sulfur.
Clean Coal solution?
There are many solution for the energy problem. My question was more about if it would be doable and interesting for most situation.
Since there already an economy around coal why not make the new plant cleaner since the technology is almost ready?
Personally I prefer Hydro power but where I live it's one of the best solution. Not the best elsewhere around the world sometime it's coal whether we like it or not.
Since there already an economy around coal why not make the new plant cleaner since the technology is almost ready?
Personally I prefer Hydro power but where I live it's one of the best solution. Not the best elsewhere around the world sometime it's coal whether we like it or not.
LFTRs can work fine without their own neutron economy. We don't need a Fusor. We should pin down both Lifters and Polywells concurrently anyway; we can certainly use a Nuke with an 'on/off' switch.KitemanSA wrote:The best alternative to BFR, IMHO, would be an accelerator (fusor?) driven, Thorium fueled, molten salt reactor. Very high thermal efficiency (45%+?), low to no long lived "waste" products, inherent safety. What is not to like?
I understand that back when we actually had a Molten Salt reactor, the engineers would turn it off on Friday, and go home for the weekend. This is without any kind of accelerator as a source of Neutrons.
LFTR = liquid floride thorium reactor?Helius wrote:LFTRs can work fine without their own neutron economy. We don't need a Fusor. We should pin down both Lifters and Polywells concurrently anyway; we can certainly use a Nuke with an 'on/off' switch.
I understand that back when we actually had a Molten Salt reactor, the engineers would turn it off on Friday, and go home for the weekend. This is without any kind of accelerator as a source of Neutrons.
Yes, a molten salt reactor can run without an accelerator (fusor) to pump it, but in order to run it long term on Thorium, it EITHER needs to be pumped, or the Protactinium needs to be removed via re-processing. With said reprocessing comes the greater potential for building WMD. So perhaps I should have included the "no reprocessing" to my litany of "what's not to like".
Oh, and I THINK that the MSRs you mentioned were actually run on U, not T.
Another interesting factoid about the launch loop is its potential as a combination energy transmission / storage device.clonan wrote:A Launch Loop (possible with today's tech but expensive) to make space access easy and solar satalliets with microwave transmission.
Imagine a loop looping around thru tunnels in the US peing pumped to higher speeds by power plants and being slowed by linear generators at cities hundreds to thousands of mile away. Every generator then effectively becomes a "baseload" generator, no "peaking power" required. Very interesting.... and NOT shtupid!