Making Electricity

      So much of the ‘technology’ we use runs on electricity. Yet how is that electricity made?

We can use people power, treadmill/bike/etc. I assume this would be rather inefficient, but it would also be exhausting. Although it does have the benefit of being good exercise, and most people I know (including myself) could certainly use more of that.

We could use solar, but the sun only shines part of the time. Same with wind, that only blows part of the time. Somewhat manageable through batteries, but they bring their own issues. Electric batteries tend to be lossy, in a way a gallon of gasoline (for example) isn’t. Not to mention the scarcity of materials, and thus work to dig them up.

Hydro electric seems pretty good, for where it works. But it’s geographically limited. You need the right terrain, and the right rainfall. And then you need to build it. Which ignores the potential impact of ‘climate change’ on water patterns.

Burning things (wood/coal/gas/oil/etc) is relatively efficient. And the fuel can be stored easily enough, which adds a degree of predictability. But it does pollute in various ways, which is not ideal.

And then there is nuclear…

Nuclear Power

      Historically, nuclear power has a bad reputation. Probably due to accidents and the link to weapons. As I understand the traditional nuclear power plant, risk of meltdown or similar will always be there. As is the steady production of waste.

      But there are multiple ways to gain power from ‘nuclear’. I’ve heard about liquid thorium reactors. Apparently they can’t meltdown. If something like that starts to happen, the physics of the thing stops the reaction from continuing (ie byproducts decrease reaction rate if not siphoned out regularly). And the meltable plug to drain lines seems a pretty effective method for anything that has a constant ‘down’ (ie anything on the ground).

      As for waste, it seems to burn most of that as part of the reaction process. What is left is either harvestable for other functions (medical mostly?), or stable (ie not radioactive enough to worry about). Biggest con here seems to be that it hasn’t been implemented at scale yet. Which means there may be downside and complications we don’t yet know about. But enough tests have been done, surprises should be few enough.

      Not suggesting nuclear powered cars (although that might be worth exploring someday). But if we want to go for electric cars (which itself seems rather questionable), the only practical option looks like nuclear. And if we’re going that route anyways, might as well minimize risk. At least where we can, there will likely always be niches where other considerations come into play. Solar sidewalk lamps work well enough, and no need to demolish functioning dams, as just two examples.

      Until such time as we retool our ‘technology’ such that it doesn’t need electricity, we’ll need to be able to produce that. As reliably, abundantly, and cheaply as possible. Minimizing environmental impact is also a bonus (but face it, if the options are ‘watch your children starve‘ or ‘pollute the environment’, there isn’t actually an option). Nuclear salt reactors seems to solve this challenge better then what we are using currently.

      Admittedly, I’m not a nuclear physicist, so I could well be wrong.