Reversing Global Warming: Individual vs Corporate Responsibility?

[hitssquad]

How much it would cost America to go all-nuke

How much would it cost to build enough nuclear power plants for our countrys power needs?

For electrical power:

We have ~500 gigawatts of total electrical generation capacity, right now, and ~100 gigawatts of nuclear. 400 gigawatts would cost $600 billion, if we could count on the plants/units to cost $1,500 per kilowatt.

As far as how many nuke gigawatts we would need in order to provide America's entire energy needs, America currently runs on ~100 quads (quadrillion BTUs) of energy per year. A gigawatt-electric reactor can make ~8 terawatt-hours of electrical energy per year. 100 quads is 29,300 terawatt-hours, so we would need ~3663 gigawatts of electrical generation capacity. (I am going to assume that transportation fuels can be synthesized by nukes from water and CO2 with roughly the same efficiency as nukes make electricity, and I am going to ignore that manufacturing iron and steel, etc., would use nuclear heat directly.) Since this is 3563 gigawatts over our current nuke capacity, we would have to spend $5.3 trillion (the total U.S. economy is only ~$11 trillion).

There would undoubtedly be economies of scale, so it would not really cost that much. Plus, as I said, I ignored the fact that heat can be tapped from nukes directly -- for the industrial processes that require heat -- much more efficiently than it can be generated from nukes first making the heat into electricity. If we only needed 3 gigawatts-electric capacity, and if it only cost us $1,000 per kilowatt-electric of capacity, the tab would come to a more-reasonable $3 trillion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One cost not included with projections for nuclear power is the cost of decommissioning. As I understand things, it is argued that the complete cost for decommissioning can far exceed the cost of building the plant. In one lecture that I attended in college, it was argued that we don't even know the real cost of decommissioning the largest reactors. The estimates cited were staggering. Also, the real cost of responsible waste management will be huge. If its not, watch out! I have also read that we should look at the fuel recycling program used in France. At least some proponents claim that the French do this quite well.

 

[hitssquad]

Emission benefit-levels vs feature-levels; and America's unlimited supply of gasoline

we talked about this once before wrt the hybrid autos. People are buying them.

They are not, and they will not ever. Industry analysts estimate a maximum eventual market penetration for hybrids of 3%. Toyota publicly admits that it produces hybrids at a loss, and that it never expects to make money from them. Toyota publicly states that it considers hybrids a "marketing expense."

The thing about the air-car is that is has zero emissions

That would be a feature, if it were true (see below*). People buy benefits. There are technologies for gasoline-engine cars that can reduce the emissions far below current levels. It doesn't matter if a car has "zero emissions." Zero emissions would provide the same benefit as a low-emission gasoline car, if the gasoline car could achieve the desired low-emission level needed to qualify as a benefit. What is needed here to decide of the "zero emission" car has an edge is what the benefit threshold for lowness of emissions is defined as. According to the market right now, gasoline cars already meet the cleanliness benefit threshold. We know this because the market is regecting cleaner gasoline cars are rejected, price-point for price-point, in favor of dirtier gasoline cars with better performance/luxury/safety/looks. And the manufacturers are twiddling their thumbs, sitting on technology that can make gasoline cars even cleaner than P-ZEV, because they know they can't incorporate that technology into their cars in this market that is clearly rejecting clean cars.

*Two reasons you cannot have a zero emission vehicle are that all cars emit particulates from their bodies and from their tires. Gasoline cars emit so little particulate pollution from their drivetrains these days that their tires account for more.

Oh yes, I throw out the suggestion for your consideration that in addition to meeting stiffer clean air standards, the size of personal vehicles should be limited somehow. Perhaps lanes could be dedicated to vehicles under a certain weight, or some roads could be for small vehicles only.

If this is for efficiency, the United States has the potential capability of producing unlimited amounts of gasoline continuously for the next ~10,000 years. What might be the point of rationing energy?

There are three points I think stand out as most important in transportation energy thinking today:

1. The United States has the potential capability of producing unlimited amounts of gasoline continuously for the next ~10,000 years from water, CO2, and nuclear energy.
   
   
2. Gasoline cars can be made far cleaner-running than they are, and perhaps clean enough to qualify for benefit levels if only the benefit levels would be listed instead of assumed to be unreachable by gasoline engines produced in a market that has decided that even the current best gasoline engines in terms of emissions (P-ZEV; there are several hyper-low-emission gasoline P-ZEV vehicles on the market) are not as attractive as vehicles with worse emissions but better performance/luxury/safety/looks for the same price.
   
   
3. Gasoline offers a level of performance that is considered by the American market to be a benefit, not just a feature.

Since you have there addressed energy supply and energy use emissions, what is the point of looking for an alternative to gasoline/diesel/kerosine?

 

[Pengwuino]

How do you make gasoline from those 2 'ingrediants'?

Sounds like the dream of an alchemist

 

[hitssquad]

The value of the power produced vs associated costs

One cost not included with projections for nuclear power is the cost of decommissioning.

Advanced reactors can run longer. 100 years is not a far-out possibility and has been mentioned many times in the nuclear-engineering/nuclear-management literature. And it does not cost anything to mothball a plant. Throw up a chainlink fence and a "Keep Out" sign and you have yourself a nature preserve.

As I understand things, it is argued that the complete cost for decommissioning can far exceed the cost of building the plant.

That is correct, and the same is true for all types of solar and solar derivative-power plants. You should see the estimates for decomissioning wind power plants. They tend to be pretty shocking to people who think you just drive up, pull the tower down, and haul it away.

In one lecture that I attended in college, it was argued that we don't even know the real cost of decommissioning the largest reactors. The estimates cited were staggering.

That's OK. The value of the power provided by a 40-year plant is quite a but more staggering and, unlike that produced from any solar and solar-derivative power plant types except for hydro, pays for that plant's own decomissioning.

Also, the real cost of responsible waste management will be huge.

Again, the value of the power produced is quite a bit huger. Every nuclear kilowatt-hour produced in America is taxed one-tenth of a cent to pay for ultimate spent-fuel dispensation. Even with the relatively few plants we have had for the last few decades, we have collected $18 billion toward final disposal. Multiply that by 30 and you have $600 billion. Again, that is a tiny fraction of the value of the energy produced.

I have also read that we should look at the fuel recycling program used in France.

France invested in recycling way back in the 1970's because it was scared of uranium price spikes. It was a mistake. France's recycling program is messy and is largely responsible for the 14-cent/kwh price of electricity there. And it turns out that recycling only makes financial sense when mined uranium costs more than $700 per kilogram. Today it costs between $10 and $20 per kilogram and there are many estimates of seawater uranium mining (this is the 10,000-year uranium resource) that put the cost only as high as $100-$200.

Our once-through system is much cleaner and cheaper and may be more proliferation-resistant than France's system.

At least some proponents claim that the French do this quite well.

If they do it quite well, one might wonder why they have had major public scandals regarding unauthorized spills from their recycling plant.

 

[hitssquad]

Building a better gasoline, from scratch

How do you make gasoline from those 2 'ingrediants'?

Water provides hydrogen and CO2 provides carbon. Hydrocarbons are chains of hydrogenated carbon. No alchemy is required.
http://www.ecn.nl/biomassa/research/poly/ftsynthesis.en.html

--
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis

The reaction affords mainly aliphatic straight-chain hydrocarbons (CxHy). Besides these straight-chain hydrocarbons also branched hydrocarbons, unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins), and primary alcohols are formed in minor quantities. The kind of liquid obtained is determined by the process parameters (temperature, pressure), the kind of reactor, and the catalyst used. Typical operation conditions for the FT synthesis are a temperature range of 200-350°C and pressures of 15-40 bar, depending on the process.


Products

The subsequent FT chain-growth process is comparable with a polymerisation process resulting in a distribution of chain-lengths of the products. In general the product range includes the light hydrocarbons methane (CH4) and ethane (C2), LPG (C3-C4), gasoline (C5-C12), diesel (C13-C22), and light oils and waxes (C23-C32 and >C33, respectively). The distribution of the products depends on the catalyst and the process operation conditions (temperature, pressure, and residence time).
--


The gasoline you put in your car is already synthetically hydrogenated to the point where it accounts for 5% of the heat energy released in your engine. What nuclear synthetic gasoline would do is move that 5% up to the level of 100% synthetic hydrogenation, and also synthetically form the carbon chains.

To get the raw material CO2 from the atmosphere, the same techniques currently used in underground-mine safe-rooms, submarines, and space stations to extract CO2 from the air might be used.

 

[hitssquad]

Spent nuclear fuel dispensation

So if nuclear power has become safer, and the waste remains the concern

Waste has never been a major nuclear-power concern. Waste is more of a problem per kwh of energy produced in regards to coal, natural gas, and all forms of solar, and solar-derivative, power including hydro.

what happened to the ideas about shooting it into the sun?

To get something from the Earth to the sun, you don't shoot it. You cancel its orbital velocity and it drops. The extra velocity needed to escape the solar system from the Earth is less than the velocity of the earth. For that reason, it would make more sense to shoot it out of the solar system than to drop it to the sun.

The sun, also, would not allow the waste to enter. The waste would be reduced to ionized atoms near the surface of the sun and be blown back up/out with the solar wind. On its way out of the solar system, much of it would be intercepted by the Earth where it would be captured in the Earth's ionosphere and stay there until the next pole shift, whereupon it would drop down into the atmosphere and sprinkle from there onto the surface of the earth.

Not realistic, either logistically, theoretically, or it's just not cost effective?

Very little nuclear waste is produced, relative to the amount of nuclear power produced. No one has yet come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be placed in a small vault in the ground, or even simply dropped into an ocean.
phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html

--
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to convert the waste into a glass — a technology that is well in hand — and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can claim that we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the waste produced by one power plant in one year would eventually cause an average total of 0.6 fatalities, spread out over many millions of years, by contaminating seafood. Incidentally, this disposal technique would do no harm to ocean ecology. In fact, if all the world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as 1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.
--


The reason why tens of billions of dollars are spent on nuclear waste management is that the institutions involved with that waste management have mandates to spend as much money as is reasonably possible (ALARA; risk reduced to As Low As Reasonably Achievable). Since trillions of dollars worth of power are being produced, reasonably possible gets defined as whatever would cost tens of billions of dollars.

 

[2CentsWorth]

That was some time ago, and my recollection was that it was a hoax. Whether or not this idea was presented by serious scientists or not, now I remember the issue of the waste being blown back by solar winds.

It seems nuclear energy is far less risky now and the waste can be dealt with just as reasonably as any other waste, or better when compared to fossil fuels. However, and returning to the OP, how can the public view about nuclear power be changed? It would seem to me that the government needs to take the lead--it's not something that can be done on an individual basis.

In reference to what individuals can do, and examples discussed regarding something as singular as heating water, even this seems to present obstacles to an individual--assuming the individual is even aware that such technology is available. If such technologies were to be utilized by developers/home builders, the matter could be dealt with much better. So once again, it will probably require government initiative along with industry to really make a change.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hitssquad, you need to cite your sources. Your are too loose with your facts.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050412-07443000-bc-us-hybrids.xml

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That would be a feature, if it were true (see below*). People buy benefits. There are technologies for gasoline-engine cars that can reduce the emissions far below current levels. It doesn't matter if a car has "zero emissions." Zero emissions would provide the same benefit as a low-emission gasoline car, if the gasoline car could achieve the desired low-emission level needed to qualify as a benefit. What is needed here to decide of the "zero emission" car has an edge is what the benefit threshold for lowness of emissions is defined as. According to the market right now, gasoline cars already meet the cleanliness benefit threshold. We know this because the market is regecting cleaner gasoline cars are rejected, price-point for price-point, in favor of dirtier gasoline cars with better performance/luxury/safety/looks. And the manufacturers are twiddling their thumbs, sitting on technology that can make gasoline cars even cleaner than P-ZEV, because they know they can't incorporate that technology into their cars in this market that is clearly rejecting clean cars.

What is the maximum theoretical efficiency of an internal combustion engine?

*Two reasons you cannot have a zero emission vehicle are that all cars emit particulates from their bodies and from their tires. Gasoline cars emit so little particulate pollution from their drivetrains these days that their tires account for more.

Okay fine, we need to look at tires and drive-trains, but that is a separate issue from cars ready to drive now. The air-car seems to be an option worthy of consideration for crowded cities. Zero emissions less the grid seems to be pretty good. The significant question is: What is the environmental price for grid powered autos?

If this is for efficiency, the United States has the potential capability of producing unlimited amounts of gasoline continuously for the next ~10,000 years. What might be the point of rationing energy?

Can you cite the well-to-wheels efficiency of this process? Or, what is the total energy cost per gallon of gasoline. And we need real, not theoretical values. We know the real price for other options. Next, could you provide links to hyper-efficient autos that will available, or at least ready to market soon? I hadn't heard of hyper-clean combustion technologies as such.

But I want to again stress the idea that we could put tremendous pressure on drivers to buy efficient vehicles by making large car drivers pay a convenience price. The more I think about this the more I like it. Let's say that we designate vehicles that meet certain high environmental standards as Type A vehicles, for example. And these autos are clearly designated, and they get privileges such as those for car-pooling and such now. We could even limit all other vehicles, with certain exceptions, to the first two lanes of all interstates and major highways, and set the speed limit at 55 MPH for those autos and trucks, as for tractor-trailers now.

 

[Informal Logic]

No man, let's just blame everything on environmentalists. I mean just by the name one can tell they are anti-environment!

 

[hitssquad]

Hybrid vehicle demand in perspective

Hitssquad, you need to cite your sources. Your are too loose with your facts.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20050412-07443000-bc-us-hybrids.xml

NEW YORK, April 12 (UPI) -- Some used models of Toyota's super-efficient gas-electric Prius hybrid car are selling in the United States for more than they cost new.

Hybrids cost more used than new because battery-production is bottlenecking the production of the cars and production is below demand. Demand is higher than production because hybrid is a marketable feature with enough of a minority of car buyers. This does not imply that terminal market penetration will ever be over the 3% that has been estimated by J.D. Power-LMC Automotive Forecasting Services.

Hybrids do not significantly impact CAFE compliance because so few are sold. The high-mileage models that Toyota sells below cost in order to comply with CAFE standards are the Echo and the Scion xA and xB.



http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=101587

--
Lutz said GM "missed the boat" on a marketing opportunity with hybrids -- an opportunity Toyota Motor Corp. has played to its advantage.

"We business-cased it, took a hard, analytical look and thought the engineering and investment were irresponsible vis-a-vis our shareholders," he said. "We failed to appreciate what Toyota has basically treated as an advertising expense."

Lutz said GM was doubtful the business case for hybrids would work.

In hindsight, "we should have said, 'We'll lose $100 million a year on hybrids, but we'll take our advertising budget of $3 billion, make it $2.9 billion and treat it as an advertising expense,' " he said.
--


http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=30&article_id=9194&page_number=1

--
Insignificant Future Seen for Hybrids

The Daily Auto Insider
Friday, February 4, 2005
February 2005

Hybrid vehicles — which typically draw power from a gas or diesel engine combined with an electric motor — will probably peak at about a minuscule three percent of the total U.S. market by 2010, The Associated Press reported, citing a new study from the forecasting arm of J.D. Power and Associates.

Roughly 88,000 hybrids were sold in the United States in 2004, about one-half of 1 percent of total vehicle sales. This year, the number of hybrid models is expected to increase to 11 from eight, and sales will grow to 200,000, or about 1.2 percent of the market, J.D. Power-LMC Automotive Forecasting Services says.

J.D. Power-LMC expects the number of models to expand to 38 by 2011 — 17 cars and 21 trucks and sport-utility vehicles — but that sales will plateau that year at about 535,000, or roughly 3 percent of the U.S. market.

"This is related primarily to the price premium of $3,000 to $4,000 consumers must pay for a hybrid vehicle, compared with a comparable non-hybrid...[and] competing technologies such as more fuel-efficient gasoline and diesel options that will be available after 2006," said Anthony Pratt, senior manager of global powertrain forecasting at J.D. Power-LMC, according to the AP.
--


Do hybrids really get good gas mileage?
http://motortrend.com/features/news/112_news004/

--
The EPA's numbers are almost always wrong, inflating mileage by 15 percent to 30 percent, critics say.

[...]

"It's just wrong that inflated labels mislead consumers into thinking they are getting better mileage on the road, and a better deal at the gas pump, than they really are," a summary of the bill prepared by Cantwell's office said.
--


Vehicle ownership costs actually drop with rising gas prices:
http://motortrend.com/features/news/112_news050322_fuel/

--
AAA's 2005 edition of "Your Driving Costs" shows the average cost of driving a passenger vehicle in the United States is nearly unchanged from one year ago; despite higher costs for gasoline.

This year AAA estimates it will cost an average of 56.1 cents per mile or $8,410 per year to own and operate a new passenger car, compared to $56.2 cents per mile or $8,431 annually in 2004.
--


The Prius is torture to drive:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=2172&page_number=2

--
The sign-up board has spoken, and hardly anybody wants to drive it anymore! We can't fault its frugality (an average mpg of 41.1 is nothing to sneeze at), but we can point to the very uninspiring driving experience. Plus, let's face it: The thing's kinda goofy-looking.

•I suffered…for nine days and 1500 miles. While the Prius actually moves quite well in a straight line, the handling is downright pitiful. The steering is so slow and the handling so mushy that after a quick lane change, the car continues to move around on its suspension like a Bobblehead for about 3 seconds after the maneuver.
--


The Prius is torture to drive, Part II:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=7701&page_number=2

--
anyone who buys a Prius as fashionable, commodious transportation will likely be annoyed by the car's efficiency-related quirks and will probably never realize the full value of its exotic technology. To them, the acceleration will just seem slow—at 11.3 seconds to 60 mph, it is 2.5 seconds more lethargic than the dawdler of our sedan pack, the Subaru Legacy L. That it is 1.7 seconds quicker than the previous Prius will provide little consolation.

They're also likely to be put off by the sometimes nonlinear acceleration that results as the various propulsion systems vie for the opportunity to provide traction. They'll find themselves using the cruise control a lot more than one might in a "normal" car, because without it, maintaining a constant speed requires a bit more throttle adjustment than they're accustomed to. And finally, the whole starting and shifting ritual will seem peculiar to anyone whose Prius doesn't share garage space with a BMW 7-series: Sit down, press the rectangular key into the slot, press the separate button marked "power," then wait a beat or two for the "ready" lamp to come on, hit the brakes, then move the dash-mounted stub of a shifter to R, D, or B.

[...]

DANIEL PUND [...] What I’d overlooked is the power of image. When selling complicated, expensive technology aimed at saving owners a little bit of really cheap fuel, you don’t want to offer something that looks or operates like a normal car. You want a car that will advertise clearly its non-regular-car status. Slicker of shape and smoother of operation, the still distinctly non-car-like Prius still does this well.

AARON ROBINSON The Prius makes good apparel. Put it on, and the message is clear: “This one is green.” As a car—just another 3000 pounds of stamped steel, molded plastic, cut glass, nonrecyclable rubber, heavy metals, and paint—it’s mediocre. Slow, numb steering means the nose wanders at will on the freeway. The computerized brakes are hard to modulate, and the computerized throttle has trouble keeping a speed without computerized aid from the cruise control. The fuel saving is measurable but not worth the trade-offs. If you want to be green, buy a bicycle. If merely appearing green is enough, go for the Prius. If you want the best car for the money, look elsewhere.
--

 

[SOS2008]

New Gallup Poll Information (May 3rd):

Nuclear Power

Some observers have long advocated increased use of nuclear power as a way to solve energy problems, and Bush last week offered some moral support for the nuclear power industry, calling for construction of more nuclear power plants to increase domestic energy production.

Americans approve of the use of nuclear power in general: 54% somewhat or strongly favor its use while 43% either somewhat or strongly oppose it. There is continuing evidence of the NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) phenomenon when it comes to nuclear power, however. Asked about a nuclear power plant in their own local community, 63% of Americans oppose the idea, with only 36% favoring it.

 

[Huckleberry]

Not many people know about the energy crisis besides what they hear on television. The only effect that they see are the rising prices of gas at the pump, and maybe smog if they live in a large city. There is a fear of nuclear power that once nuclear waste is buried in the Earth it will always be radioactive and will seep into water. The fear of accidents like 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl discourage people from wanting a nuclear power plant in their community. Even television and movies make nuclear power out to be a dangerous thing, while there aren't many that show the dangers of smog. If people were better educated about nucler energy then there would be less resistance to it.

The 3 Mile Island incident released enough radiation that there is a good chance that 1 person would die. 30'000 - 60'000 people are estimated to die from the Chernobyl accident. Tens of thousands of people die every year from fossil fuels. That does not include many more that suffer health problems from fossil fuels.

Nuclear power plants only account for about half of the current low level radioactive waste in this nation. Nuclear waste comes from dozens of other industrial processes including generating electricity from fossil fuels.

More than 90% of the radioactive waste that comes from nuclear power plants is low level radioactive waste. France has built many nuclear power plants and they process their own waste as well as some of the waste of other nations. Over 40% of their energy needs are met by their nuclear power plants and they have had a very successful track record in managing this waste. (Although I did read something lately about rabbits found with very high levels of radioactivity that were near a waste disposal site.) Considering the relatively small size of their nation in comparison with the U.S. we should also have plenty of room to store radioactive waste far away from communities. (Bush approved a waste site in the Yucca mountains recently.)

Nuclear power isn't completely safe, but it is much safer than fossil fuels at the moment. Considering the dwindling supply of fossil fuels and the reliance on other nations to provide it, why are we not building more nuclear power plants? Perhaps it is because Bush has a personal interest in the oil companies. The oil companies are influential in politics. And environmentalists who would preserve nature at the expense of humanity while they drive around in their SUVs and have a television on in every room of their house. Conservation makes much more sense to me than Environmentalism.

 

[Informal Logic]

Not many people know about the energy crisis besides what they hear on television.

So how does the public become more educated/informed? Data presented earlier indicates that people trust environmentalist organizations more than the government.

Perhaps it is because Bush has a personal interest in the oil companies. The oil companies are influential in politics.

Could this be why?

(Bush approved a waste site in the Yucca mountains recently.)

Provided earlier in this thread:

April 16, 2002 - Core Opinions: Americans and Nuclear Power
by Darren K. Carlson, Government and Politics Editor

This past February, President Bush selected Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a permanent site for storing thousands of tons of America's nuclear power plant waste. Nevada's Republican governor, Kenny Guinn, opposes the decision, contending that it would be unsafe to transport the waste to Yucca Mountain and store it there. With concerns about the United States' dependence on foreign oil driving the exploration of alternative forms of power, nuclear energy is being re-examined; and the nation's leaders and public must weigh their energy concerns against environmental ones.

Plants have been placed away from populations, which have met less resistance. This can be done, especially in the western states. Though there is a significant upfront cost, now is the time while gas prices are high.

And environmentalists who would preserve nature at the expense of humanity while they drive around in their SUVs and have a television on in every room of their house. Conservation makes much more sense to me than Environmentalism.

I'm not an environmentalist in the sense of belonging to any organization, and we may recall looking back in history that environmentalists argued against dams as well--ridiculous. However, this business of making statements such as environmentalists drive SUVs is just as silly as saying they prefer the use of coal (neither of which can be documented), and I'd say most Americans own at least one TV, which BTW are not big energy users on the spectrum of things.

So returning to the OP, and the role of government, in other threads on this topic it has been noted that Bush's dismissal of global warming has not been helpful. More recently there was a post about neocons in the Bush administration who now support alternative energy because of a sudden realization that dependence on foreign oil sucks. I did not find this to be impressive, but rather sad because the environment was never enough impetus for these people. The right-wing conservatives seem to cast blame on environmentalists and individuals more than government and industry, which was also shown earlier in this thread:

Age and Politics Influence Environmental Attitudes

The public's willingness to place environmental protection above economic growth is far from universal -- there is significant variance by age and political affiliation, for example. Republicans and older Americans are less likely to prioritize the environment.

Thirty-seven percent of Republicans say they favor environmental protection over economic growth, while 51% would put economic growth ahead of the environment. A majority of independents (59%) place environmental protection first, while just 3 in 10 (31%) pick growing the economy. Among Democrats, two-thirds (66%) choose protecting the environment as the higher priority, while 24% choose economic growth.

When the right-wing conservatives get off their capitalist agenda, maybe progress will be made.

 

[Huckleberry]

And environmentalists who would preserve nature at the expense of humanity while they drive around in their SUVs and have a television on in every room of their house. Conservation makes much more sense to me than Environmentalism.

I'm not an environmentalist in the sense of belonging to any organization, and we may recall looking back in history that environmentalists argued against dams as well--ridiculous. However, this business of making statements such as environmentalists drive SUVs is just as silly as saying they prefer the use of coal (neither of which can be documented), and I'd say most Americans own at least one TV, which BTW are not big energy users on the spectrum of things.

Yes, it is a silly statement. I meant it figuratively, not literally. What I was implying is that many people who consider themselves environmentalists are also as much of a contributor to pollution as anyone else. If these people lived according to their own beliefs then I would have much more respect for what they have to say. I think in large part that they do not.

It simply is not possible for 6billion+ people to exist on this planet with no environmental impact. This is why I prefer the role of a conservationist. It is our responsibility to create a sustainable environment by taking a rational view of the technology at hand and using it in a manner that supports our energy requirements with the least environmental impact.

Here are a few examples of conservation that I think would be a responsible solution to some environmental problems. Stop overfishing. Create 'no fish zones' in areas that fish use to breed. Allow fishing outside these areas. This will create a steady supply of new fish. Japan has been forced to use this tactic and overfishing has become a serious problem on the east coast of the U.S. especially in the Cape Cod area.

Cut a tree, plant a tree. Instead of cutting lumber and not replacing it create tree farms that will support the nations lumber needs. The quality of lumber in the U.S. has decreased. What today would be considered A grade lumber would have been C grade lumber decades ago.

Not many people know about the energy crisis besides what they hear on television.

So how does the public become more educated/informed? Data presented earlier indicates that people trust environmentalist organizations more than the government.

Perhaps it is because Bush has a personal interest in the oil companies. The oil companies are influential in politics.

Could this be why?

I think it could be why. That thought has crossed my mind many times. In the case of the Cape Cod fisherman, he overfishes because he is trying to earn enough money to support himself in a market that is becoming increasingly difficult. So he fishes more. The corporations that over-lumber the forests are also seeking quality wood to make a profit. Both are irresponsible views, but the company with it's greater economic capability and influence should be more responsible.

In another thread I posted some statistics on the global energy consumption. The U.S. with 5% of the global population consumes 25% of the world's energy. Over the last 100 years the people of the Earth have used almost 700 billion barrells of oil. There are estimated to be 1 trillion barrells remaining and the demand has been exponential. By 2020 over 80% of the remaining oil reserves will be in the Middle East. I can't say with any certainty what the motives are for the U.S. to not invest more in alternative energy sources, but the president seems to put himself ,and his family and friends, in a good postion for significant financial gain by not building nuclear power plants while securing trade with Middle East nations.

 

[hitssquad]

EPA to change its fuel economy tests

Do hybrids really get good gas mileage?
http://motortrend.com/features/news/112_news004/

--
The EPA's numbers are almost always wrong, inflating mileage by 15 percent to 30 percent, critics say.

[...]

"It's just wrong that inflated labels mislead consumers into thinking they are getting better mileage on the road, and a better deal at the gas pump, than they really are," a summary of the bill prepared by Cantwell's office said.
--

caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=30&article_id=9555

--
At a conference of government and auto-industry officials in Washington, EPA officials said the agency is considering adding three tests that would better reflect how consumers actually drive, the story said.

The new mileage tests under consideration would include one for aggressive driving, with speeds of as much as 80 miles an hour; another one run at 95 degrees Fahrenheit under heat lamps with the air conditioner at full blast; and a third at 20 degrees. The tests reduce fuel economy between 12% and 29% in internal EPA studies.
--

 

[Pengwuino]

How exactly do they get those MPG ratings for like the Prius? There was a news report about the shortages in my city and they had a commercial sayign the MPG was somethign like 60mpg after the news report ran. Oddly enough, during the news report, they were asking prius owners about it and they go "Oh its more like 40 or 45 mph really...". Bad tv marketing timing lol. Oh oh and even worse, the newsreport also pointed out the fact that there's very few in town and many are not in well-desired colors and then teh commercial that ran after the newsreport in addition to the "60mph" statement, that the prius "is here, finally, available at a dealer near you".

I mean they practically get the commercial, do a whole news report on how everything they say is inaccurate, then they run the actual commercial after that!

 

[Chi Meson]

So... (check my math):

To cover the US demand of 750,000MW would require about 2,700 square miles of solar panels at a cost of $3.75 trillion.

Thanks, Russ, for those figures. I was just talking about this subject with my classes. THis is the most overlooked aspect of solar electricity. I like to point out the devastation to the ground llife that must lie below those panels.

Do your numbers take into account "cloudy days"?

I do, BTW, consider myself very "green." This is why I am pro nuclear.

Does anyone care to comment on the "French Model" of nuclear power?

 

[Chi Meson]

Additionally, "resource-recovery" plants shoud be more in use (that's a nice way of saying "trash-burning"). What a terrible waste of petrolium resource: all those plasitc bags lying in landfills. Meanwhile we are buring filthy coal anyway.

THe three "R"s of environmentalism begin with "reduce" and "reuse." "Recycle" is a distant third.

Buy an aluminum bike! (and use it)

edit: make that a "used" aluminum bike!

 

[russ_watters]

Do your numbers take into account "cloudy days"?

No. Only what I explicitly stated. I did a more in depth analysis once, but this one was just an off-the-cuff calculation. You can easily throw in some numbers for other sources of inefficiency, though (clouds, transformer/inverter loss, dirt on the panels, angle of sun issues, etc.). And needless to say, such inefficiencies are substantial.

 

[brewnog]

And it does not cost anything to mothball a plant. Throw up a chainlink fence and a "Keep Out" sign and you have yourself a nature preserve.

I disagree with this.

I've been recently involved with a decommissioning consultancy whose main income comes from doing work for the NDA and BNFL, primarily at Sellafield. While most of their work is project management (and front end design) of decommissioning solutions, a good deal of their work involves mothballing. As you know, there are instances where mothballing is a preferable option to total cleanup, but it does not come cheap.

Extensive surveys need to be done on the sites; in 30 years of operation many things in the plants have been changed, and no records kept. Some of the engineers I was involved with have come across cases where caretakers' stores have been surveyed, only to find that they have been unofficially used as storage for contaminated artefacts. Other instances include the discovery of auxiliary systems which don't appear on any original (or subsequent) blueprints, and some cases where such systems have been completely removed with no records kept at all.

In order to mothball such a plant, you need to know exactly what is in there, where it is, and what risk is poses. You need to know that it can be safely contained. In many cases, extensive structural work needs to be done merely to restore the buildings themselves to a state where they can safely withstand another 30 years of neglect.

 

[Chi Meson]

Clarification of previous post: I (meaning me) am convinced that mankind's future is a nuclear future. Our greatest mistake (in re Nuclear power) is that the US handed over the design and building of the nuke plants to the private sector way too soon. We got the worst of all worlds: a profit-oriented nuke industry, another bureaucracy tipping toward political whims, and a public scared witless over the atomic bomb.

In France, they have made all the nuke plants smaller and identical to one another. All technicians are from a highly trained core of engineers. In the US, all nuke plants are different. Our local plant hires as many cheap "associate degree" community college graduates as it can legally get away with.

So, I am pro-nuclear, but not pro status-quo.

Have you gotten your bike yet?

 

[Pengwuino]

What nuclear plant hires AA grads? Maybe its for clerical work lol

Do you think the public would be any different if the US government was cmopletely in charge of building and running the reactors? Experiences over here in California are meh... give the government control, wind up with blackouts and high-prices... let PG&E run things, cheap, reliable power.

 

[Astronuc]

One cost not included with projections for nuclear power is the cost of decommissioning. As I understand things, it is argued that the complete cost for decommissioning can far exceed the cost of building the plant. In one lecture that I attended in college, it was argued that we don't even know the real cost of decommissioning the largest reactors. The estimates cited were staggering. Also, the real cost of responsible waste management will be huge. If its not, watch out! I have also read that we should look at the fuel recycling program used in France. At least some proponents claim that the French do this quite well.

Ivan, I am not sure where you got the information on decommissioning, but utilities are required to have a decommissioning fund for each unit. There is a lot of cash there, and that is what made it attractive for companies with multiple nuclear plants like Exelon, Entergy, Dominion, Constellation and others to take over nuclear units from utilities which owned one or two units.

The actual cost of decommissioning is somewhat arbritary (well cost of anything is somewhat arbitrary, but . . .). Utilities believe that they can decommission for less than the cash on hand, while critics argue it will cost more. A lot depends on the decontamination and disposeal of large components, e.g. pressure vessel and steam generators, and the primary circuit. One point of contention is the acceptable level of residual radioactivity - the industry usually accepts some level that is generally unacceptable to critics of the industry.

As the older units like Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, Trojan, etc are decommissioned, the industry gains experience, and then can (hopefully) predict or project a more realistic costs for the decommissioning phase of nuclear plants.

Currently, the industry trend is to extend the life of plants from the licensed 40 years to 60 years. The economics is largely dictated by the viability of the primary system components. In addition, with more experience and improvements in core/plant monitoring, better design/predictive analysis and improvements in component (e.g. turbine) efficiency, plants have been up-rated or re-rate for greater electrical generation capacity.

Recycling U and Pu has its own issues, proliferation concerns being one.

 

[Gokul43201]

Kyoto Protocol ratified inside the US ?

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/

On February 16, 2005 the Kyoto Protocol took effect in the 141 countries that ratified it. That day Mayor Nickels challenged mayors across the country to join Seattle in taking local action to reduce global warming pollution.

On March 30, 2005, 10 mayors representing more than 3 million Americans, joined together to invite cities from across the country to take additional actions to significantly reduce global warming pollution.

On June 13, 2005, the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement was passed unanimously by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

As of October 21, 2005 187 mayors representing nearly 40 million Americans, have accepted the challenge.

Well, do you like what Mayor Nickels has started ? Will it work ? Here's what these mayors intend to achieve :

Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take following three actions:

* Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns;

* Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and

* Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a national emission trading system

http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/climate/PDF/Resolution_FinalLanguage_06-13-05.pdf

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/mayor/climate/quotes.htm#mayors include Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Miami, Atlanta, Honolulu, Chicago, Louisville, New Orleans, Boston, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Albuquerque, Newark, Las Vegas, New York City, Portland, Philadelphia, Providence, Charleston, Austin, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Washington DC, among several other smaller cities.

 

[SOS2008]

I see this old thread reappear, and now it shows me as starting it--odd.

 

[pattylou]

Gokul - Just curious - did you get this info off the link I posted here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97246&page=2


I ask because I always wonder if people even bother to follow links.

Otherwise, on a related topic, a boy I went to school with through grade 8, is now mayor of our home town. I have emailed him a couple times asking him to consider signing on. So far, no luck - but yes, I think this is a great thing for the mayors to do.

 

[Pengwuino]

I just realized that I thought russ had started this thread...

don't mind me, just passing through

 

[Astronuc]

The agreement on Kyoto protocols goes beyond Mayor Nickels to the US Conference of Mayors - http://www.usmayors.org/USCM/home.asp

Many cities have major problems with air quality - despite the Federal Clean Air Act. There are two practical sides here - one is reducing energy costs by increasing fuel efficiency or using more efficient vehicles, and the other is air quality and its health effects. Respiratory illness is a major problem in some areas and the necessary and costly medical treatment could be avoided by cleaner air through more effecient vehicles.

Another startling concern for the future - water! From a USCM press release -

Albuquerque, NM – On the heels of two devastating hurricanes, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, led by Conference President and Long Beach, California Mayor Beverly O’Neill, along with Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez, Chair of the Conference of Mayors Urban Water Council, released the findings of a National Urban Water Resources Survey today during a press conference in Albuquerque.

The survey of 414 cities, which was conducted prior to the recent hurricanes, sounds the alarm on “everyday” infrastructure problems as well as catastrophic events.

The survey outlines the Mayors’ “Top 10” list of water concerns, which include :
1) Aging Water Infrastructure
2) Water Infrastructure Security
3) Water Supply Availability
4) Unfunded Federal Mandates
5) Water Quality of Rivers
6) Flooding
7) Emergency Planning, Storms and Hurricanes
8) Drought Management
9) Regional Conflict over Water Use
10) Water Rights

These results show that “everyday” issues like maintaining, replacing and building water infrastructure remain critical challenges for cities. Although cities have been extremely active in committing their own funds to major capital investments in water and wastewater infrastructure, there is still a tremendous need for additional infrastructure investment.

Most alarming is a city’s challenge to provide adequate water supply, particularly with aging water infrastructure and questions about how to finance future water infrastructure investment. The survey shows that nearly 40% of the cities surveyed will not have adequate water supply in 20 years.

 

[russ_watters]

I just realized that I thought russ had started this thread...

Yeah - looks like a page or two got cut off.

 

[Evo]

Loseyourname created a stciky for frequently discussed topics and had suggested merging several similar threads into a single thread, this thread was merged with another.

All of the pages should be here, they might be rearranged a bit.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul - Just curious - did you get this info off the link I posted here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97246&page=2

No, I googled after I'd heard an interview with Mayor Nickels on the radio.

 

[Smurf]

You!: Fix the Enviroment!

I did it last time. Make Billy do it.

 

[Archon]

I did it last time. Make Billy do it.

Dude, Billy's been corrupted by interest groups. He barely has a mind of his own anymore...it's almost like he does things without thinking them through...like he doesn't care about his people...I'd almost think he doesn't want to fix the environment just because he has a lot of money riding on certain industries...