I had always assumed that ion engines could power a vehicle so long as it didn't run out of electricity and gas. Turns out the grid that ionizes the gas wears out, so there's a mechanical limit to how long it can run, which kinda puts a limit on the speed the vehicle can reach.
I'm wondering now if linear accelerators can last longer since they don't use a grid to ionize the gas? The company I work for makes proton accelerators. Could such a machine be made to last several decades of continuous operation?
Let's do a round trip to the nearest solar system and get some photos and measurements back in say, 100 years. Some speculate that it would be pointless because we would develop better technology that would pass whatever spacecraft we sent, even if we started a decade or 2 later. Gotta start somewhere though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EcoVan
Also, if nuclear sources are so safe, why is it that not a single insurance company worldwide will insure a nuclear plant? All of the plants in the US are essentially subsidized by the Feds.
|
Nuclear has basically been criminalized due to misplaced fear of catastrophe. The regulatory process is so cumbersome that prices are so high that nobody would privately invest because the payback is so far out into the future. While risk is low for a major catastrophe, the price is high if one occurs.
This is why it requires government-sized backing. Either that, or maybe we just need a Go Fund Me. Regardless, it will require eliminating the unnecessary red tape.
Quote:
The simplest solution to our energy and pollution issues has been available to us for decades...taking our existing buildings and systems and making cost effective improvements to them and using the appropriate power sources for the use.
It is often said that the U.S. is addicted to energy use.....and the word addiction seems to be the truth. We could have an increased standard of living, with more comfortable homes and buildings, more money available, and address the fundamental issues of energy and pollution but refuse to make the changes necessary. Is there any better definition for an addiction than this?
To me electricity will not be the answer until the loses are not 60% and clean and insurable generation sources can be found. In the meantime, we can go back to much more efficient generation methods...cogen or in todays terms "combined heat and power." Moving from a gas fleet to a diesel fleet, moving back to railroads for most of our commerce instead of trucks in the U.S will kick in a nice chunk of energy and pollution savings.
|
I'm all for increasing efficiency. That doesn't really address the demand though because we'll just find new ways to expend more energy as we improve efficiency. Larger vehicles, larger homes, more of everything.
Saying we're addicted to energy is like saying we're addicted to money. Obviously more is better and represents greater freedom.
Again, I'm all for improving efficiency, but that doesn't solve the fundamental problem of reliance on fossil fuels.