There are different types of 'breeder reactors'. I remember the info on liquid sodium transfer reactors, but that seemed to disappear fast for some reason.

A liquid sodium leak would be devastating, it would burn furiously on contact with air. Also liquid metals tend to dissolve other metals into it. I always wondered how they overcame that problem, maybe it was only a short term solution, (pun).

I also always wondered why spent fuel was not just mixed with the dirt of the uranium quarries as new uranium was mined. It would return only about the same radioactive amounts that were removed originally giving a basically null effect on the environment.

Philadelphia, PA (Really Bensalem)

Harvey's Tips Page When you finally understand it completely... it changes.

Interesting idea of returning the radioactive waste to its source. I see no reason why they couldn't be worked out, but some issues might be transport, and distribution/disbursement. Its a lot more concentrated then when it was first removed. Then there is a trickier issue, if it was originally in stone and is returned to the dirt, will rain leach/wash it out.

I was in the controls group so I don't know the details of liquid metal. They did have a leak detection system. It used a series of sensitive microphones. A signal processor would look for common signals. (The same "noise" at multiple locations is really a signal too weak to detect at just one. The location can then be determined by looking at the time shift and triangulating.) - The whole project seemed to have more politics then engineering. Though its amazing what the engineers were doing with the little money that trickled down.

Another group was working on a liquid lithium unit for a space reactor. I heard that was canned because of space reactors coming out of Russia; they weren't all that safe or long lasting, but they were cheap enough to be considered disposable.

Like everyone else I don't want a power plant in my back yard. But given the choice I'd choose the liquid sodium system they were working on over one that burns fossil fuels. - Maybe someone will design a man-made photosynthesis process for separating oxygen and hydrogen, to power fuel cells. Or an efficient long lasting solar cell.

No, actually I MEANT Congress.... (as a whole body!) since PROgress is to move forward and CONgress.... well, you get the idea.... :-$ 

Uh, BTW, is Dee making KoolAid again? LOL!

It would have helped if the oil companies would have been permitted to build more refineries, but no, can't build them because of the enviroment. The oil companies can't even up the supply side by drilling for more oil in and offshore in our own country !!!! When the companies can produce more the price will come down.

Poke holes in ANWAR, the caribou will survive !!

Oregon State University is in the process of setting up what you describe a mile off the Oregon coast - and still people complained that it would ruin the view!! If you can see a mile off the coast with all the fog we get it would be a miracle.

I'm excited about this process of harnessing the ocean for power. Every time I visit the coast I think of all the potential in those powerful waves and currents.

Starting next week I will be car pooling to save on gas. We have a little car and a big truck for hauling our stock and supplies for our farm. I prefer to drive the truck (much more comfortable, better stereo system, a/c, power steering, auto everything - none of which our 95 Prism has), but it is time to get smart, not comfortable, about our gas consumption.

I heard that if we all decreased our gas consumption by 15% it would make a difference to the bottom line of the oil companies, who have just cleaned up profit wise during this oil "crisis".

Cindy M

Cindy,

If everyone stopped buying GAS for just One day it would make a serious dent in there pocket books!!!

You are doing the right thing! We are all to dependent on government regulated fuel sources.

Cindy,

It can't be the same thing I had read about years ago. The thing I'm referring to is completely under water. Think of an under water windmill powered by the currents that don't change/move. Though powerful, the blades were so big and slow the fish would/could swim right by them. (Maybe Oregon is using the things that float up and down on the waves?)

I'm not familiar with the Oregon project. The people objecting, I wonder what alternative they would prefer; somehow I doubt anyone has asked. Sometimes the best way to handle the objectors is to include them in on the process. But it must be done early enough in the process to seriously evaluate their positions. When all the information is truly on the table they might agree, or maybe a different approach is better. - It would be an interesting approach, to include (the interested) people in on the decisions that effect them. There are always trade-offs, in all decisions.

Cars get more efficient, gas tanks get smaller; Prices go up. Prior to this spike, I was paying the same per tank as I did with my first car. Less gas, same distance. At this point I'm hoping my car holds out until I have the money for a new one. Me and my wife have very different needs. Earlier this year she bought a Honda CR-V; I liked the Toyota Prius.

In the newspaper article about this a couple of months ago, it appears the project will be a mile out and everything will be below the ocean surface, so eye pollution is minimal. They will have a boat or station built out there, but it will be small. You might be able to find out more at Oregon State University's website. It sounded very interesting.
Cindy

Sorry, but that won't work since twice as many people would buy gas the following day. Now, if they didn't drive their car for a day, that could work but than again they might have twice the errands to run the day after.

Dave

Before even looking at the price tag, I'd ask about byproducts and where all the coal would come from. If the break even is really $30/barrel, I suspect others are also evaluating the option.

I don't know the details, but I've read that some of the bio-fuels made from farmed crops can be mixed in with gas, up to 20-30%, for use in existing cars. (It bothers me that the government is paying farmers to plow under crops. Use the money to help explore other markets/uses. Using biodegradable packing material made from corn is much better for the country then the stuff made from oil.) Subsidize development for the future, don't pay people to not work.

The government should help those who can't take care of themselves, not those who won't. And when possible the same money should be used to help two or more groups at once. (One group needs help, another work, put them together.) The best solutions minimize or eliminate the problems that created them.

Ken,

You are so right, The big thing that bothers me is the government knows the alternative sources. But they won't do anything about it because this is a huge paycheck toward there deficit. If everyone is going to continue to buy the gas at the price they control then they will continue to sell it and probably keep raising the prices until someone says enough is enough.

Ken,

Not sure about the byproducts but Montana (Wyoming?) has more coal than anywhere in the world. The estimate I read said they could supply all our gasoline for something like 30 years.

You and I are on the same page on paying farmers not to grow. I come from a long long line of farmers. That was the one thing my dad and I could never come eye to eye on and had to give up trying. His argument was that it kept the land available for farming rather than it being sold off for development.

We have 10% ethanol available here in Kansas. Right now it is 2 cents less than regular unleaded. I would love to use it and always said I would if it was cheaper than regular. The problem is our gas mileage goes down around 10% on the highway using the ethanol blend so at 2 cents less it is more expensive. It would have to be more than 10% cheaper than regular before I would consider using it. Then there are older vehicles that can not run on ethanol. I am not sure my 11 year old truck (and know that my 15 year old car won't) run right with it.

The other problem is the reason it is cheaper is because there is a 50cent subsidy on ethanol production.

The 50 cent subsidy doesn't bother me at this point. (economy of scale, foreign dependence, keeping money out of anti-USA pockets, ongoing development.)

What does concern me is your experience of 10% reduced mileage for a 10% mixture. (For 90% gas you get 90% of the miles.) That makes it sound like a useless filler taking up tank space. The end result is no gain to help reduce oil dependency.

***

If the purpose of government aid is to subsidize the farmers so they don't need to sell the land, instead of paying farmers for not producing and sending money to poor countries, Buy the food at below market value and send it. It gives income for the land, but maintains incentive for market based alternatives. It's more difficult to divert food from the starving to a swiss bank account.

"If the purpose of government aid is to subsidize the farmers so they don't need to sell the land, instead of paying farmers for not producing and sending money to poor countries, Buy the food at below market value and send it. It gives income for the land, but maintains incentive for market based alternatives. It's more difficult to divert food from the starving to a swiss bank account."

You got that right baby!