Topic Closed: November 06, 2006 - January 18, 2007
Not a member? Register Now. * Required
Global Warming, Electricity, Transportation and Govt. PART 1:
posted by bill f. on 11/30/2006 - This comment was recommended 3 times
The premise that this planet is warming up at a faster rate is obviously true as one only need to ask “ where have all the glaciers gone”, from our lower 48 United States of America? The real question is what the cause is? I take issue with the folks that just blame it all on us humans. I also take issue with those same folks for specifically singling out CO2 as a primary green house gas. The two primary items of interest are electricity production and transportation, for using fossil fuels. What has transpired is as follows: 1. Somebody coined the term “Global Warming” and pointed out their fears as to eventual results. 2. Fear mongers grabbed the ball and increased the hype. 3. Politicians recognized this conflict as an opportunity to garner votes and passed what was deemed protective legislation. 4. Lawyers plying their trade played the blame game and filed appropriate lawsuits. 5. Finally after our Executive Branch refused to stop the economic recovery process, the whole mess has wound up in our Supreme Court. 6. Now there are three types of “Global Warming” causes: A. Theoretical global warming causes. B. Legislated global warming causes. C. Litigated global warming causes. D. We still lack verifiable global warming causes. Electricity and transportation are two staples we require to exist in this chaotic world. I will always have both, even if I have to be creative in my machine shop. The current topic on nuclear power, represents just one solution super minds have created to keep us on track for survival. Any solution that benefits one society and creates hardship in another will be the root of international conflict and jealousy. The comments are mine; Thanks Bill f.
view all 5 replies
Re: Global Warming, Electricity, Transportation and Govt. PART 1:
posted by antiglobalwarming on 1/17/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
I do not like how the ending results sound about global warming but it will happen anyhow if we don't do anything to stop this from happening. At the rate we are burning our nonrenewable rescources. also, with the electricity problem we need to cut down on that because it is not unlimited to us to keep on using without concequences. if we keep going at this rate of wasting there will be nothing left.
posted by bill f. on 1/17/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello AGW, Here are three simple suggestions: 1. Define the problem as you see it with regards to my post or you pick the topic. 2. Think about what makes the best solution to any and all our energy problems. 3. Share your fresh ideas with all of us. Remember we have a choice to try and find specific solutions or settle for just being part of the problem. You have shown us you have a good heart, now give us your good ideas. Thanks Bill f.
posted by LtDan on 1/17/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Dear AGW, I assume from your moniker that you are aware that the planet is undergoing a warming trend, and that you are opposed to that waming trend. "I do not like how the ending results sound about global warming but it will happen anyhow if we don't do anything to stop this from happening." Without knowing the cause or causes of the warming trend, what is it you think we humans can do to stop the warming trend from happening? I suspect that you believe --- but really can't explain why you believe --- that carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere by humans burning fossil fuels is the overwhelming cause of the warming trend. And I suspect also that right now, without looking up the answers, you cannot pass the following basic greenhouse gas global warming quiz: 1. Ranked by volume, what are the four principal gases in the atmosphere? 2. What are the four principal greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? 3. What percentage of the atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide? 4. Fill in the blank. Greenhouse gases contribute to the warming of the atmosphere by intercepting ________________ radiation as it is emitted by the earth. 5. What is the only known source of free oxygen --- i.e. O2 --- in the atmosphere? Most people who say they are absolutely convinced that carbon dioxide emissions by humans are causing global warming, and that global warming is a major threat, cannot answer more than two of those five questions right off the top of their heads. That is to say, they know very few actual facts concerning the subject about which they hold such strong beliefs and opinions. Their beliefs and opinions are, to put it bluntly, faith-based. How did you do on the quiz? Were you able to pass it without going to Wikipedia? Answers: 1. Nirogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and Argon. 2. Water Vapor, Ozone, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide. 3. About five one-hundredths of one percent. 4. Infrared. 5. Photosynthesis.
posted by Sara Hart on 1/17/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Rather than looking at the opinions of politicians and lawyers, why not take a look at those who are trying to be most objective, the scientists. Since the 1970's they have been consistently and unargueably recording increasing temperatures in direct correlation with increased CO2 in our atmosphere. The issue of global warming is a debate amongst the journalists and the politicians, but the reality of global warming is a phenomena of the industrialized era to the scientific community.
With regard to your issue, human beings are the only ones responsible for the increase in CO2 content of our atmosphere. Check out your own 'carbon calculator' to evaluate how many tons of CO2 you personally contribute to our atmosphere each year. Perhaps this will enlighten you to take some action toward preserving our environment for future generations.
Nuclear Power~An inconsiderate prospect...
posted by Sara Hart on 1/17/2007 - This comment was recommended 1 time
The use of nuclear power creates an enormous burden on our future generations. Just as we are currently experiencing the effects of a petroleum based societies problems, future generations will have much larger problems presented before them if we rely on nuclear power. The waste products half life is often in billions of years which means their toxic effect will outlast most if not all humans. The nuclear waste that we already are responsible for as a nation is more than we know what to do with and it is always a matter of which group of people we will sacrifice to dispose of it somewhere. Currently, it is mostly in the areas where Native Americans reside. In 2000, I was involved in a project about how we are going to notify the beings that might exist in 1 billion years to not go excavating the toxic waste dumps that we have stashed all over the globe. If they are anything like humans, they will have a curiosity to explore the pyramids of waste and expose themselves and the world to extremely detrimental effects. This is not something worth risking. Additionally, there are no containers that are proven to safely seal off the waste from the surrounding land as nothing has been given the test of time as of yet. Therefore, it will always be destroying the surrounding Earth, any water supplies, air, soil, etc... Nuclear Power is a very short-sighted approach to energy for the general public and has got to be a huge money maker for some billionaires to even consider it worth while.
Is anybody else paying attention to the NUCLEAR DoomsDay clock?
posted by bill f. on 1/13/2007 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Because of the world issues of: 1. Poorly protected nuclear weapons caches. 2. The moves towards mass nuclear energy as an electricity source. 3. The continued hype over global warming that has almost turned into a nuclear energy demand. 4. Terrorists fixation on nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to bring on armageddon. 5. World governments more interested in power positioning than world peace and energy solutions. 6. The lack of compermise, even within our group, on energy solutions that protect all of our interests. 7. The ever increasing signs that short term, spot, sudden climate change is a distinct possibility and could cause as large a reduction in world population as severil past wars combined. If anybody wonders how this post ties in with our topic, just ask any or all of those 15+ Nobel Laureates that are in charge of the doomsday clock; their renewed stated concerns over these complex issues and plans to move the clock time closer to midnight, is what motivated me. I just read their thoughts on YAHOO news at 4:30 PM Texas time and para-phpased them as best I could. Thanks, Bill f.
view all 11 replies
Re: Is anybody else paying attention to the NUCLEAR DoomsDay clock?
posted by TurnTheEmittersOff on 1/14/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello Bill, I’ve read the article on Yahoo News. I don’t believe the group is critical of increased nuclear power deployment, merely a view that increases in nuclear power must incorporate well conceived controls to protect against proliferation – a view that I personally, FULLY support. If you look through the history contained within the article it is mostly nuclear arms issues. Even in the list that justifies the current move, it is Korea and Iran (again, no nuclear power plants there, only bombs, or potential bombs) that top the list. I believe this group, along with may others around the world, is saying – with regard to nuclear power – that it has the potential to help some countries achieve their energy goals, and that each country must consider the added values and risks within the context of those goals, the relevant national constraints, and available resources within their grasp.
news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070113/ts_afp/usnkoreairannuclear_070113170520
posted by bill f. on 1/14/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello TTEO, I agree with and thank you for your views, I hope you too will follow up. 1. Iran and North Korea both try to skirt the arms issues by claiming that they have rights to nuclear energy even if they can abuse its by-products. They even claim to have rights to nuclear weapons and delivery systems just because other countries have them. More and more it seems the civilized world is becoming more of a victim of the analogy: The enemy of my enemy is my friend. What ever happened to the "common good"? The lack of this key ingredient makes it impossible to ever have world peace or even a safe world. I think what is being brought to question is if in fact "here we go again with an arms race and another cold war"; that could lead to armageddon. 2. You may have noticed the amount of Ice and snow Texas and other states are having after a very hot summer. the point is: If the grid is disabled do to natural or man made disasters of ICE. PRARIE FIRES and etc.; Does it really matter how that electricity was produced? 3. Its hard to damage underground infra-structure by most natural and man made disasters. When I put a new computer in my machine shop it is hardened more than one for my home office. Perhaps hardening our gas, electric, water and etc., infra-structure is just as important as how we get the products to run thru it? Thanks again, Bill f.
posted by Ronald David on 1/14/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello bill f., Is anybody else paying attention to the nuclear doomsday clock? YUP, but with no more concern than I have for the big ball in Times Square counting down to New Years day. They are both entertaining. Quite coincidentally, the ‘seven events’ you list might just as well be quoted to tick down the remaining seven minutes on a similar timepiece. Cloaked in the ‘doomsday clock scenario’ the historical events listed deserve serious thought, but little more. The ‘clock scenario’ epitomizes fear mongering at its worst. Just as a hungry fish you attacked the bait and composed a home grown dreary and pessimistic list of your own. Please consider this opposing view: “MANKIND IS INCHING CLOSER TO WORLD PEACE, a group of scientists and opinionated citizens said!” [No, it isn’t necessary; to make a list of historical events here to prove the point, but 9 of the doomsday events comprise a good starting point.] Let’s consider those 15+ ‘Nobel Laureates’ the article quoted. What is it about a ‘title’ that once bestowed by men, causes other men to tremble with both fear and worship? Those 15+ people did not create the events they cleverly use to symbolize minutes on a clock. One of them did create the doomsday clock scenario and all conspire to promote their agendas to scare the hell out of us. It is very entertaining and I suggest should be recognized as entertainment. Our ideas, those of each and every one of us concerning nuclear power and nuclear energy are as significant if not more so than those of titled men. “I believe this group, along with may others around the world, is saying – with regard to nuclear power – that it has the potential to help some countries achieve their energy goals, and that each country must consider the added values and risks within the context of those goals, the relevant national constraints, and available resources within their grasp.” (Posted on 1/14/2007 at 5:26 AM — By TurnTheEmittersOff.) You bill f., all of us, are inching our way closer to world peace, in spite of men with titles. By the way, thank you TTEO for listing the URL!
posted by bill f. on 1/15/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello RD, I rate the odds on the dooms day clock, Pat Robertson's Prophesy and world peace right up there with our total climate callapse from CO2 emissions. Terrorists take all these things seriously and make an agenda out of them; consequintly we must make them a factor also. One of my points, if you read between the lines, was to question the prudence of trying to replace one finite energy source "fossil fuels" with another "nuclear energy"? Five of the practically infinite sources of energy are solar, wind, hydro electric, zero energy use and geothermal; none of those sources threaten mankind or provide WMDs for terrorists? Who is supporting this technology? Zero energy would be using the ground for habitable heat, cooling, insulation; mirored & magnified direct sunlight for light, solar furnaces for cooking and stored heat reserves. I bet this system alone could reduce electric production requirements 40% and elevate our quality of life. The other question I brought to bear was: Why we are not creating electric transmission infrastructure that is under ground, permanent and safe from all the elements? In Dallas, Texas they steal copper electric lines and sell them for scrap; sometimes the thief just gets fried. The last point is that if even 10% of the world problem solvers concentrated on just that, we could evolve towards peaceful co-existance and not just talk about it. Bill f.
posted by Ronald David on 1/15/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello bill f.,$br$ Zero Energy???? How does one transfer heat, cooling, or sunlight from geothermal portals without powerful sources of energy to build and maintain the infrastructure? A zero energy concept is ‘pie in the sky’ akin to planting trees to prevent weather disasters, and equally unrealistic, funneling heat from coal fired electric generators to heat ‘green houses’. $br$ $br$ When the finite sources of energy we rely upon are entirely consumed, future generations, what’s left of them, will have an existence far, far different than anything we can image, especially those survivors in so called temperate zones such as Texas and Wyoming.$br$ $br$ Bill, none of us are talking ‘replacing’ finite fossil fuels with finite ‘others’. Please don’t muddy the discussion. In the future, if mankind is to survive, we need time now, time to find more permanent sources of energy and that mix includes nuclear. $br$ $br$ You ask; “who is supporting this technology?” The practically infinite sources of energy you named; solar, wind, hydro, even zero energy have found serious investors around the nation. Who is supporting this technology? Well for starters, mankind, a long time ago, harnessed hydro energy. Today our local Wyoming electric company has broken ground to build 21 new wind turbines to support the citizens of Laramie County.$br$ $br$ You ask; “Why we are not creating electric transmission infrastructure that is under ground?” WE are! Even in this little railroad town, cryogenic electric transmission lines have been laid underground and more added every year. $br$ $br$ As visionary men build a super highway under Boston, and under the ocean between France and England, or bounce video and words off satellites, or destroy targets with minimum collateral death, finding ‘replacements’ for finite fuel is only a few billion brain cells away.$br$ $br$ $br$
posted by bill f. on 1/16/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello RD, Thanks for your information on energy projects. Why aren't we promoting that kind of technology as vigorously as nuclear technology; I asked? ZERO-ENERGY: When I enter a bathroom and a passive ceiling portal delivers enough light to shave with, that is zero energy as it contributes without taking anything. Opening a screened window in spring is cooling, heating or ventalation with zero energy. When I walk into my prox. 720 sf shop within an 1800 sf shop, and no ac or heater is running (its 65 to 80 deg. f.), that is zero energy. It is also in caveman 101. You get exactly the same effect in underground, adobie, concrete block, etc. houses, mines, missle silos and caves. The sky lights in my unheated / cooled warehouse are also zero energy. Solar furnace technology is hundreds of years old, can be tested and explained with a magnifying glass and a bit of sunlight; heat up metal, rock or water and you can temporarily store some heat for future use. This is my zero energy 101 and some of it can be used by anybody that wants to save money, resources and our environment. You have your pie in the sky and I will have mine on a plate. Bill f.
Re: Underground transmission
posted by lookingforpositive on 1/16/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
To bury conductors underground. When current is passed through a conductor, heat is generated. To bury conductors underground you would first have to insulate the conductors. You would also have to provide raceways for these conductors. Most likely PVC conduits incased in concrete. All of these steps require resources to manufacture and install. For the conductor insulation and the raceway, petroleum would be needed. The other issue with enclosed, or buried, conductors is that in addition to insulation the conductor itself needs to be oversized (derated) in order to minimize heat buildup. That means that additional resources of metal are needed. When the utility company installs high voltage transmission lines above ground you will notice that the conductors are exposed. There is no insulation. Wind acts as a coolant to reduce heat. It is a small scale, natural and low cost way for the conductor to act like a super conductor. The colder the conductor, the more current it can handle because resistance is reduced. So, do we spend more scarce resources to bury all conductors. Or do we spend a smaller amount of resources to fix them when they break. If we all had the means of producing current at demand centers (homes, businesses, etc.), outages due to weather would not be such an issue. Inefficiencies in transmission would be reduced as well. Current takes the path of least resistance. What you generate would most likely be used by you or your next door neighbor. Just some thoughts.
Hello lookingforpositive, R.D. nailed it and as I read it the DOE plans on using this cyrogenic system as the plan of the future; with more underground transmission lines. Perhaps R.D. can post us a url with the latest and most information. The ECD (energy Citations Database is where I found my information. The EPRI and DOE are fostering studies on 5 methods or systems in an effort to get the cost down to a lower rate per installation. For every mile of overhead lines it requires 20 acres of dedicated land and that is their main motivator. Evolving as technology is available, is probably the most cost effective way to spend our money on any long term project. What ever the system, you and I must pay to build, maintain and replace it when its obsolete. You are absolutely corect in as much as overhead lines are still the cheapest infrastructure unless the system is in harms way: Tornado alley, subject to grass fires, ice storms and etc.; then a cost benefit analysis should be made. I was able to find both studies. Thanks Bill f.
Re: Is anybody else paying attention to the nuclear doomsday clock?
posted by Ronald David on 1/16/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Hello bill f., and lookingforpositive, Caveman 101, Zero Energy 101, can be used by anyone that wants to – EXACTLY SO BILL. You asked; “Why aren't we promoting that kind of technology as vigorously as nuclear technology?” The answer bill f., is every home and business owner on this planet, even tent dwellers and sailors at sea, already employ almost all of the obvious passive ’zero energy' schemes you have outlined, and have done so for 3 to 5 millenia. It isn’t necessary to ‘promote’ something when that something is obvious and in universal use. Using nuclear energy, just like using fossil fuel energy, even burning dead trees, is not quite so obvious, you will agree, and need some ‘hype’. I ask that you read the other questions I asked and perhaps serious dialog will develop. Hello lookingforpositive, You wrote; “If we all had the means of producing current at demand centers (homes, businesses, etc.), outages due to weather would not be such an issue. Inefficiencies in transmission would be reduced as well. Current takes the path of least resistance. What you generate would most likely be used by you or your next door neighbor.” You are correct, but you have repeated an idea already proposed by mioffe__2000 that ignores the basic problem. Generating ‘current’ requires generators, and generators require energy, but we are told existing forms of energy are finite, and that includes dead wood. [It should be obvious water dams, wind turbines, solar farms, etc., even mini reactors, anything that produces 'current', located near billions of ‘demand centers’, or homes and businesses is indeed just more ‘pie-in-the-sky’. Some find fault with cars located near homes and businesses, can you really imagine 'current producers' located near homes and businesses?] Satisfactory means to conduct energy, no matter what the source, will always be an inescapable need regardless of cost, inefficiencies, and short or long haul. In a different context you wrote; “petroleum would be needed”. Not ‘would be needed’ sir, but is ‘absolutely essential’ for society as we enjoy it today to survive. An education in Caveman 101 is prudent, and certainly makes more sense than debating heat loss into the atmosphere, controlling natural disasters, or efficency of conductors, et cetera!
posted by yomi on 1/17/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
well said bill, but what happens if the clock runs out, which is inevitable, would the world really end? shouldnt alternative sources of energy be sought and this menace finally put to rest?
Hello yomi, Good questions for starters. 1. No I don't think the world would end but It may never be as accomodating as it is now. 2. Alternative energy sources will not even get talked about by the world's trouble makers and thus will not figure in the mix. Figure out a way to make all world citizens want to live and make this old world a better place, now and in the future; like most of us want it! Just like R.D. said; the doomsday clock is a political device meant to try and scare some positive actions into our deeds. To that end it plays into the hands of the fear mongers that just want to micromanage people with differing views. To the good of man, skilled politicians with good intentions are just as valuable as scientists, engineers, writers and etc. Thanks for your post. Bill f.
Nuclear Energy
posted by Gurrattan on 1/10/2007 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Actuallu I'm new to this stuff. What I want to ask is that is it a renewable source ? Its a well known fact that it accounts for a lot of world energy needs but what about the nuclear waste ? Any idea what the govt. plans to do about it ? If it is going to be widely used then the waste will increase too ? How to effectively dispose off the waste or is it possible to recycle nuclear waste ?
view all 4 replies
Re: Nuclear Energy
posted by GRLCowan on 1/10/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
It is not renewable. Several governments have nuclear waste stored in pools under water and plans eventually to fish it out and bury it, but as yet it has not harmed anyone, and they make money on fossil fuel sales that increased use of nuclear energy would prevent, so they're not in any rush to finally get rid of it. (This would remove a handy excuse for blocking nuclear construction.) When they do bury it, no-one expects any trouble for much the same reason no-one expects the saltshakers in the sunken ship Titanic to salt the ocean:there is a lot more radioactivity in the ground than we will ever need to bury. Yes, the waste will increase, but never to the extent that the above won't be true. No, recycling isn't really possible. When nuclear people speak of recycling they mean putting back uranium atoms that didn't burn the first time; the ones that did burn (fission) are done.
www.uic.com.au
posted by TurnTheEmittersOff on 1/11/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Good questions. Depending on how you define it, no energy source is indefinitely sustainable (not even the sun in due time). The current US government (approved) plans are to take the fuel as it is (in assembly form), place it in long term storage casks, and tuck those casks neatly in an underground repository. But this would be wasteful, as there are significant quantities of recoverable energy left in those assemblies. See the link below. If the fuel is reprocessed (as it is currently done in the UK, France, Japan, and Russia) then the volume (and subsequent heat load) of the remaining material (final waste) is considerably less – as is the resulting heat load. What this means is that the repository requirements are much less, supporting further nuclear deployment. Furthermore, if fast reactors (in existence in other countries, but not the USA) can be deployed, they can consume the minor actinides (non-fuel bits of the waste recoverable from the fuel through reprocessing for nuclear ‘consumption’. These fast reactors have another benefit – they can be used to ‘breed’ fissionable material from U238. This takes a 50 to 200 year nuclear lifetime based on estimates of recoverable U235, and extends it up to 50 times. I’m going to link a specific US strategic document to another thread “Who will lead the Charge”. Have a look at that to see more detail on what I’ve said above. Hope this helps. See the topic 'Additional Sources of Nuclear Fuel' in the linked document below.
www.uic.com.au/WNA-UraniumSustainability.pdf
posted by parkslopejedi on 1/14/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
"Depending on how you define it, no energy source is indefinitely sustainable (not even the sun in due time)." Obviously, if you take a certain point of view, you're right about that. But that point of view would be irrelevant. The answer in our modern context of sustanability--will it still be there even if we use mass quantities of it, like with oil--is still no. It's not sustanable because it's like fossil fuels: there is a limited amount of uranium in the Earth's crust, and it will run out if we depend on it for electrical energy. My point of view on nuclear energy is that since it does not produce CO2, or any other greenhouse gas, let's go for it--but let's not depend on it completely. It is not sustainable, but it can be used as a crutch while we shift from fossil fuels to sustainable, renewable resources, harnessing energy from geothermal vents, the tides, rivers, the wind, and of course, the sun.
global warming threat
Global warming is serious and nuclear energy is not helping. It is clear that this is happening. I live in boise and there was mild weather like usual. But now now it is ether relly hot or really cold no matter the season.
Zero Energy Part #3
posted by bill f. on 1/17/2007 - This comment was recommended 1 time
There seems to be a question about what zero energy is. My deffinition is: Zero energy is infrastructure that eliminates the need to consume energy to accomplish its intended task and the end product produces no waste that must be burried or flows into our atmosphere. The need for infrastructure, maintainence,repairs and replacement costs due to obsolesence goes along with any energy producing or saving sustem. Earlier posts dealt with ways to avoid using mass produced energy, other than thru the manufacture of what ever devices and products are required to build a system. This post calls attention to commercial and industrial systems that produce electricity with no need for fossil or nuclear fuel. Wind or water low rpm turbines; tide, swift water or dam installed hydro electric plants; geo-thermal springs or volcanic heat source based electric plants and solar panels operate with out consuming any fossil or nuclear fuels and produce no waste. In Texas we are persuing all of the above, including fossil and nuclear alternatives. The problem is that any time a new source is hooked up to the grid; somebody wants an at-a-boy, plus huge tax credits, no matter what the source is. I think tax credits should be on a scale that benefits zero energy technology over technology that requires consumable fuel and produces a waste product that goes into the atmosphere or has to be burried. Energy production is a fast evolving field of technology and new better technology is probably only cost effective as new or replacement infrastructure due to a catestrophic failure or obsolescence of existing systems. My point is that perhaps fossil and nuclear fuel power plants should take a back seat to zero fuel energy, when it comes to hype. Bill f.
Nuclear energy
posted by sevenstars on 11/17/2006 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Apart from the obvious issues of nuclear waste, terrorists snitching the fuel, overheated water, etc., the one thing no one ever seems to think about is that nuclear power requires uranium, plutonium, or something, just as most of our current infrastructure requires oil or coal, and all of these are finite resources and will inevitably run out one day. The solution is SOLAR, SOLAR, SOLAR!! And geothermal and hydroelectric and the hydrogen fuel cell.
Re: Nuclear energy
posted by collinar on 11/18/2006 - Be the first to recommend this
I agree with your comment. Even considering that breeder reactors can produce more fuel than they consume, we must consider the downside: nuclear proliferation and waste which is dangerous for hundreds of years. The solution, as you said, is solar. It is already cheap enough to be competitive when all costs are considered, and it is getting cheaper. Manufacturing plants are being built today that will churn out cheap solar cells based on the same processes used in printing color newsprint. As supply of these new sources of energy ramp up, everyone can have a solar collector on the roof of their house large enough to supply all their electric requirements; even their electric cars. The worlds largest (450MW/year) thin-film solar manufacturing plant is being built today in California for USD $100 million. Just think how much solar capacity we could have built with the USD $100 billion or more that we have already squanderd in vain attempts to secure foreign oil reserves. 100 times more, or 45GW/year. In a few years we would have manufactured our way out of oil insecurity, and into solar energy security, and could export the excess manufactured solar cells to the rest of the world. We would then be an exporter of solar energy solutions, instead of an insecure, dependent, importer of oil. Back on topic, nuclear simply has no role.
posted by LtDan on 1/16/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
On topic: nuclear power generation has a big role to play in the process of weaning the USA off of fossil fuels and, eventually, turning the nation to a combination of solar, geo-thermal, hydro-power, and wind power to provide the great majority of our electricity. Nuclear power can carry us over the transition period and thereafter provide us with a reliable network of backup generators, recognizing that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, and so on and so forth. We must be respectful of atomic energy, but we must not be afraid of it, and we certainly shouldn't try to frighten others by exagerating the dangers and difficulties that atomic power carries with it.
posted by adam pondaaga on 1/16/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
I'm very agree with your opinion : The solution is SOLAR, SOLAR, SOLAR!! And geothermal and hydroelectric and the hydrogen fuel cell. In my birthplace Manado ( North Celebes / Indo nesia ) there are 3 (three) active volcanoe which in my mind it can be converted to become electricity, fueled by geothermal energy. Other than conventional ways using rain water to get vapor, my idea is we inject plenty of water to the hot surface area from that active volcanoe and catch it's water vapor for driving turbine blade ge nerator. Almost the same with nuclear power plant, but in nuke power plant the heat was gene rated by nuclear reaction and here we pick up the heat from that active volcanoe to do the water vapor drive turbine blade generator and yield an electricityfor selling with very cheapest price. Why geothermal energy ? Because in Indonesia there are many geothermal resources. Simple to product, regardless from fossil fuel, low cost & ecological friendly. With 200million people popu lation it's means great electrical energy consu mer. I hope sometime in the future we can discuss
posted by LtDan on 1/16/2007 - This comment was recommended 1 time
With its vast geo-thermal resources, Indonesia could be the next energy giant of the world. All that is lacking is the means to export electricity in mass to distant continents without significant transmission losses. It seems to me that this can be done either with large super-conductive conduits laid on the ocean floor, or by figuring out a way to store enormous amounts of electricity in ship-sized floating batteries and then hauling those batteries to coastal cities throughout the world.
On-site power and conservation vs. nuclear
posted by Doug Logan on 1/15/2007 - This comment was recommended 1 time
On-site power will be the way to go in the future. America needs to get away from electricity generated by huge facilities and distributed through massive civic grids, and instead make power at discrete, perhaps linkable demand sites (houses, apartment buildings, offices) through solar, wind, biofueled generators, hydropower, fuel cells, etc. It's important for much of our power to be decentralized and less vulnerable to bad weather, terrorists, computer malfunction .etc. That future may take 20 years to arrive, and that's assuming intense encouragement and financial incentives/disincentives managed from the top down. But we need big energy today. Nuclear power seems to hold the promise of a slam-dunk fix. Still, even assuming that the dangers of nuclear disasters and of managing waste are overblown, perceptions are powerful. There will be big public resistance to the construction of nuclear plants, even if, as a matter of local economics, such plants are welcomed in some areas. Also, safety requirements, engineering and building costs, maintenance and waste disposal, and a host of other factors will make these plants wickedly expensive. Between the debates and protests on one hand and the expense and engineering hassles on the other, it would take years and years to get these plants up and running. Wouldn't it be better at least to try conservation on a level that would reduce or eliminate the need for a nuclear power resurgence in the first place? This would involve simple measures that are already being discussed: 1. An aggressive, temporary federal tax on every gallon of petrofuel for vehicles, with proceeds to finance development of alternative energy programs. 2. Much higher mileage requirements for new vehicles and continued incentives to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. 3. A temporary highway speed limit of 55 mph. It worked before, and it can work again. We'll be able to get away with 65. That's enough. 4. Federal and state funding linked to incentives for conservation and disincentives for waste of energy, from local governments right down to the home and office level. In WWII, fuel was strictly rationed. Nylon stockings were hard to come by. Metals were carefully collected and recycled. Our crisis of energy, energy politics, and global warming demands at least a modicum of sacrifice. With decent leadership, we could see results in a matter of months. - Doug Logan
www.newenergywatch.com
view 1 reply
Re: On-site power and conservation vs. nuclear
Hello Doug, How about this for a quick fix: Installing local battery back-up systems, like hybrid cars that recharge during off-peak demands, trickle charges during heavy usage and take over or fill the gaps during peak demand by supplying power back thru inverters? We seem to have a bias against batteries; due to their haz-mat waste factor. anything can be built to be recycled; including 1.5 -48 volt ni-cad batteries. We have been rebuilding lead acid batteries for almost 100 years. Raise the price on a 9 volt battery to $25.00 and we will be recharging them like we do printer cartridges. The competition from rebuilt batteries would bring the price of new ones back down. I don't agree on government intervention because once they get their hands on our money, it disappears or is misused. Texas has about a 13 billion dollar surplus; yesterday's paper talked about our Govenor wanting more state and local parks. I guess that Iraq isn't the only place where poor leadership builds monuments to their wasteful deeds. That money is all that keeps nare-do-wells from passing a Texas state income tax. How about tax incentives for stay at home workers and the companies that make that happen. Not using energy is better than anything you can do to stretch it. I like your topics and respect your proposed solutions. Bill f.
CONVECTION
posted by mioffe_2000 on 1/14/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
One of argument to support nuclear energy is that we need energy. Question “how we use energy?” again can be addressed to everyone in this discussion. We waste energy in transportation. We waste energy in power plants. WE ALSO WASTE ENERGY WHEN TRYING TO ESCAPE WEATHER DISASTER INSTEAD TO PREVENT THEM. Convection in the atmosphere plays a dominant role in determining weathers patterns. In day times lands is warmer than water and sea breeze moves onshore. In night time water is warmer than land and land breeze moves offshore. In hot summer even at night temperature of air on land area can be hotter than temperature of air on oceans area. Differences of air temperature on land and oceans area is main reason for weather disasters like hurricanes, tornado etc. We can predict weathers disaster and sometimes move millions of people from place to place to escape danger. QUESTION IS CAN WE REDUCE WEATHERS DISASTER? YES, WE CAN DO IT. Usually we have more than week warning. If we can reduce temperature of air all around United States, we can reduce forces of convection and in result decrease power of hurricanes. WE CAN REDUCE TEMPERATURE OF AIR ON LAND AREA WITH EVAPORATION OF WATER. IT IS EASIER TO MOVE WATER, THAN MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. TO MAKE EXPERIMENT WE CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW AND BE PREPARED TO SUMMER TIMES. I AM SURE THAT WE WILL SUCCEED IN THIS DIRECTION. WE WILL SAVE MONEY OF GOVERNMENT, INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PEOPLE. WE WILL SAVE LIVES. If we will succeed in this direction it will be first step to increase planting of trees all around USA. Trees are natural pumps to evaporate water. They are natural weapons against weather disaster. They will take CO2 from the air and can save SUN energy for hundreds years. If, as some believe that CO2 have nothing to do with Global warming we still have possibility to reduce movement of heat from equator to pole. That will save ice on Greenland and reduce risk of increasing level of water in the oceans. It will reduce risk of changing direction of Golf stream. I THINK THIS MESSAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT AND NEED TO BE LISTENING BY POLICY MAKERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
view all 7 replies
Re: FLOODING
We speak about necessity of nuclear fission energy, but please look how much resources and energy we are loosing because of flooding. The 1993 Midwest flood was one of the most significant and damaging natural disasters ever to hit the United States. Damages totaled $15 billion, 50 people died, hundreds of levees failed, and thousands of people were evacuated, some for months. The flood was unusual in the magnitude of the crests, the number of record crests, the large area impacted, and the length of the time the flood was an issue. Total flood damages suffered in Fiscal Years (FY), in millions of $US: FY86 – 6,007; FY87 – 1,444; FY88 – 225; FY89 – 1,081; FY90 – 1,636; FY91 – 1,699; FY92 – 763; FY93 – 16,370; FY94 – 1,120; FY95 – 5,111 10 YEARS AVERAGE –3,546. It is question if we can escape flooding? I AM SURE WE CAN SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISH DAMAGE FROM FLOODING IF WE WILL BEFORE DISASTER REDUCE LEVEL OF WATER IN LAKES AND RIVERS IN AREAS WHERE FLOODING IS POSSIBLE. http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/floods/papers/oh_1/lesson.htm http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/floods/papers/oh_2/great.htm
Re: DROUGHT
posted by mioffe_2000 on 1/15/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
TTEOff is trying to sell dangerous fission nuclear power plants by appeal to our national pride. “Here you will find comments about US technical capability "...atrophied over the past 30 years...", the American desire (and attempt to justify their need) to retain a nuclear leadership role, and high level plans to make this happen (provided their budget is approved)... Maybe you want to write your congress(wo)man... They could sure use the money.” WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WE NEED TO BE THE FIRST IN STUDIING EFFORTS. We are rich enough to study all aspects of nuclear power. We need to be smart enough to understand that every nation in the world will be pushed by their leaders to do the same as we do. We need to remember lessons of 9/11. Use your imaginations what will happen if targets will be not WC towers, nor Pentagon, but nuclear power plants. I wish the best to French people, but what will happen if not cars will be targets, but nuclear plants. It will be smarter to turn our attentions to drought in USA, where we loose a lot of our energy sources. “The real problem becomes back to back dry winter seasons, similar to what is occurring during the 1998-2000 period of time. With two significantly below-normal precipitation winter seasons, reservoirs are becoming low and the fire danger rises as the forests dry out. However, summer rains can alleviate the situation, as the monsoon season typically develops by July. The Dust Bowl days of the 1930's affected 50,000,000 acres of land, rendering farmers helpless. In the 1950's, the Great Plains suffered a severe water shortage when several years went by with rainfall well below normal. Crop yields failed and the water supply fell. California suffered a severe drought around 1970. The worst drought in 50 years affected at least 35 states during the long hot summer of 1988. In some areas the lack of rainfall dated back to 1984. In 1988, rainfall totals over the Midwest, Northern Plains, and the Rockies were 50-85% below normal. Crops and livestock died and some areas became desert. Forest fires began over the Northwest and by autumn, 4,100,000 acres had been burned. A government policy called "Let Burn" was in effect for Yellowstone National Park. The result? Half of the park--2,100,000 acres were charred when a huge forest fire developed.” TO WIN IN THIS DIRECTION WE WILL NEED MORE SMART SCIENTISTS THAN IN NUCLEAR SCIENCE. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/drought.php?wfo=fgz
Re: CONVECTION
posted by LtDan on 1/15/2007 - Be the first to recommend this
Michael, your idea sounds very plausible to me. But I believe I heard somewhere that "the debate is over" regarding (1) anthropogenic CO2 being the main cause of global warming; (2) the ever more severe tropical storms being caused by this global warming; and (3) the ONLY way to address these weather problems is by reducing human emissions of CO2. So if the debate is indeed over, your convection ideas will have to be shelved. Sorry. So will a great many other good ideas about solving the many environmental problems we face in this world. We must curtail our work on these other problems and devote the vast majority of our attention to such urgent matters as shutting down power plants, capturing CO2 emissions, pumping the gas underground, finding vehicle fuels that will not produce CO2, and ferretting out all the other ways that mankind deliberately, and with forethought, oxidizes carbon. Try to forget about evaporating water to make the air cooler over landmasses. It could work, but it will distract us from fighting the CO2 menace. Besides, isn't water vapor a powerful greenhouse gas? Wouldn't the evaporative cooling effect be offset by the increased water vapor in the air absorbing more infrared radiation?
Re: CONVECTION + ELECTRICITY= (Flooding minus drought)
Michael, Thanks for this thread. The solution is as simple as a complete water management system. Channel the water from North to south, south east and south west and even into the aquifer. Build (moving water) hydro electric systems, deep water resevoirs and navigatable canals with out dams, all along the way. Every state along the way shares in the jobs, materials, costs, benefits and the left-overs go to Mexico and South America in exchange for beneficial politics, border security and fair trade agreements. Actually any place but the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic or Pacific Oceans is acceptable for the tail end of the streams. This could be good usable, world wide, technology that could be used to put a good spin on the USA's abilities and intentions again. It is also a better alternative than more nuclear power plants as it fixes severil problems. Bill f.