If global warming is a big problem, then it stands to reason that engineers should be the ones to fix it. A few days ago, we asked Visions readers if they had any big ideas for saving the planet. Well, UMR freshman Trevor McWilliams has some ideas about energy alternatives. A lot of ideas. It's nice to know that some college students still care about stuff like saving the world. Trevor's email follows. (Keep the dialogue going by emailing news at umr dot edu -- for now, that's our only way to receive comments.)
I attended Nuke Camp at Rolla several years ago and they presented a very nice option to current problems with the energy infrastructure. Can you guess? Yup, nuclear energy! Although nuke got a bad rep from the "disaster" at Three Mile Island and the much larger problem at Chernobyl, it has since become a key component to any long-term scenario presented by those advocates of green energy. It turns out CO2 emissions from nuke plants approach zero and they are considered safer to live next to than a similar coal-fired plant. Coal plants- in addition to the CO2- also put out trace amounts of arsenic, lead, mercury, and a few other nasties as well. Over a period of time that stuff collects. Now I wouldn't personally consider it a real threat (asteroids hitting me while I sleep concern me more...) but that goes to show you how safe nuclear energy is.
The guys who make nuke plants don't mess around. To them, triple-redundancy is the norm and safety factors are very large. Besides, Chernobyl could not happen here b/c we use reactors that are designed to shut down when they fail (Chernobyl had a problem where the reaction rate increased as temperature rose- our reactors are oppositely designed) and we use 3 foot concrete and steel containment buildings. Further more, we don't use flammable moderators :) Beyond this, our engineers (including those at Rolla!) are currently redesigning American reactors to a single design known as the Gen IV Reactor. In this system, reactors are built in a semi-modular form and all reactors would adhere to a standaradized safety and control system. Nuclear power is just waiting for a favorable public opinion and legislators who don't take money from the coal guys.
Now that takes care of the electricity market, but how about the automobile market? What needs to happen is to connect the automotive fuel market to the commerical electrical grid. This IS debatable, but I'll give you one good (though well used) exaample. Hydrogen cars. Now, I know that there are more advanced projects in the works, and hydrogen gets a lot of crap, but it is a source that can work. The biggest problem is currently how to store the hydrogen safely, and that is not a killer problem. I recently read about new tanks that use an adsorbtion process to physically constrain hyperactive H atoms to the surface of an extremely porous material. When you need it, simply heat the tank up a little. And this process means that the tank is not under pressure and can contain a vast amount of hydrogen versus a gaseous form. (I would like to note that this isn't perfect- it takes a long time to fill the tank, currently. But hey, that's why ENGINEERS ARE NEEDED TO SAVE THE PLANET!)
The rest of Trevor's email is after the jump....