YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[philocrazy]

russ_watters:
YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis
----------------------------------------------------
What us energy crisis,even if us had an energy crisis would
they say it to us!
this is a joke right? i mean when you say YOU! you're mean
i just started here,give me some time to do some preliminary world
studies on the energy problem and ill get back to you

 

[thennigar]

It's 100 per cent reliable and an endless pollution free resource - tidal power.
Initially, it would cost a fortune to build enough dams in the sea,and they would be
costly to maintain, but in the very long run, they would be worth the trouble.
You'd get a lot of hassle from marine ecologists though and people who like
a nice view over the sea.

Being from the part of Canada with highest tides in the world i agree with you for sure. Its been thought about even plans been done before.
Only bad things are the impact it would have on wildlife for example, and if it would have an impact on tidal patterns.

Whatever the solution is it has to be something that is constant in the world and will be for a very long time... This basically leaves things like Nuclear, Tidal, Solar, and Wind...

 

[Dayle Record]

Here is an article from today's Salt Lake Tribune, regarding apomixis a property of some plants that asexually produce seeds, eliminating the need for costly hand fertilization of hybrid seed crops. The potential for energy savings is huge, and the potential for organic fuel sources is also huge. This will fly in the face of those that profit from the hybrid process, holding patents and selling seed. It has great promise for the third world. There are many facets to fixing the energy crisis, and this is a big one. The article discusses the potential for better feeding one billion of the humans on earth.

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2424248

 

[Rab]

i like the way you think about clean energy, but nuclear energy can cause disasters ( a hurricane in florida), plus nuclear waste cost too $$$ to get rid off. It has to be shipped and kept in special locations, it has to stay under controlled temperature for 10000 years or it will melt plus it has to be guarded from terrorists. and when the building has to be demolished even after xxx years after intense maintence has to be rebuild and if an Earth quake take on the building you ll have contaminated water...
smaller steps can be taken : ppl don't have to drive SUVs 8 cyl and a massive fuel consumption.more solar and wind energy ( switching to those will create jobs in north america)
plus let's say you want to make fuel out of corn ( u need manpower,water,fertilizers- polluting water- and machines to get this clean fuel).
in our university we r having a nice project buses that run on bio diesel ( used cooking oil)
but it is always about politics and $$$.

 

[tumor]

Being from the part of Canada with highest tides in the world i agree with you for sure. Its been thought about even plans been done before.
Only bad things are the impact it would have on wildlife for example, and if it would have an impact on tidal patterns.

Whatever the solution is it has to be something that is constant in the world and will be for a very long time... This basically leaves things like Nuclear, Tidal, Solar, and Wind...

They have one huge tidal dam in France, and it works preety well I guess.
However you might right about impact on wildlife, dams always create problems.
We, each one of us have to conserve energy that is the only conclusion.

 

[4newton]

Rab

i like the way you think about clean energy, but nuclear energy can cause disasters ( a hurricane in florida), plus nuclear waste cost too $$$ to get rid off. It has to be shipped and kept in special locations, it has to stay under controlled temperature for 10000 years or it will melt plus it has to be guarded from terrorists. and when the building has to be demolished even after xxx years after intense maintence has to be rebuild and if an Earth quake take on the building you ll have contaminated water...

Nuclear power is the only solution at this time. It is easy to make a list of all the problems. It is however more productive to find solutions to the problems. There is an easy way to control the danger of nuclear power. Put the reactor core 500 to 3000 feet underground. Atom bombs have been tested at this depth and the results are well known. This also prevents theft and safeguard from terrorists. Nuclear waste is 100% recyclable and reusable. There is no need for storage. France has been doing this for the countries of the would even the US is sending material to France for recycle.

Nuclear power is less expensive today than any other form of energy, costing about 5 cents per KWH. Coal is running about 15 cents and gas 17 to 20 cents per KWH. Wind and solar are up to 35 cents per KWH.

Most of the problems with nuclear power plants are the result of trying to build to large a plant. This was done by GE to try and make nuclear power compete with oil back in 1950 when oil was $3 to 5$.

We must start to build new nuclear power plants now. Oil and gas will be above 50 cents per KWH in less than 25 years.

 

[russ_watters]

Rab, while it is true that in a theoretical sense, nuclear power can be dangerous, its never happened in the US. Let me be perfectly clear: nuclear power has never killed anyone in the US not associated with the power company. Coal power, on the other hand, kills roughly 10,000 a year. The difference in safety record makes he choice (based on safety alone) perfectly clear.

 

[LENIN]

I totaly suport nuclear power. There is very little risk if you have good technology and US probalbly does. There is also very little polution created by nuclear power plants, and aldo nuclear waste are very dagerous they don't really present a thread, if they are stored properly. The only real problem I see with nuclear energy is the reaction of the population.

 

[tumor]

France gets almost 80% of electricity from nuclear power stations,and it works very well.Of course all is under government controll and question of profit is non existent.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Even not being american and therefore, not very aware of the energetic crisis that currently affects the US I think that my options fit the US as any other country, and because of this I’ll often use as an example what has or will be done where I live, in Portugal.

First, there is a need to diversify the energy sources for each country because this brings obvious benefits for the economy. Here are some measures I propose to achieve this taking into account the factors already stated:

1.Solar Energy
This is one of the energy sources that we can implement at present time as the technology in this area is very advanced and has been used for several years but not taking profit of its maximum benefits. I can give you the example of Portugal where is planned to start constructing any time soon the biggest solar plant in the world with a capacity of 60 MW which is supplied by 100 hectars of solar panels. Of course I must add that the region where it will be built is number one in the world on getting the most hours of sun per day. This, however, shouldn’t be seen as an impediment for other centrals for obvious reasons. What is also planned is to build micro-stations around the country to serve small populations. On that same region a school is taking advantage of solar energy by consuming it and sell what’s left to the electric network bringing profit to the school, a good measure. I would extend this to hospitals, other schools and public services. Besides reducing costs in the long term should make people more aware of the benefits of the sun.

2.Biogas
Another source that should be implanted and can be implanted right now, the technology is already available, is the use of biogas to produce electricity. Biogas can be produced using common house garbage or animal excrements. There is a small station here in Portugal using biogas from garbage producing enough energy to supply 1200 families, which can be extended to 5000 families in about 2 years. This is great to supply small populations and to reduce environmental impact of the big problem that is garbage.

3.Ethanol/Gasoline
It was already mentioned the use of ethanol in transports. If it is possible to produce at large scale enough ethanol to supply a good amount of transports I’m totally in favour of this. But if possible and happens something like what happened in Brazil where the ethanol prices were initially low but gradually increased to the level of gasoline its not worth and the ethanol market eventually was not profitable. So I propose increasing the general use of a ethanol/gasoline mixture which is already used in some countries if I’m not mistaken, this mixture has the advantage of decreasing the CO2 emissions and the oil dependacy (the percentage of ethanol in the mixture is relatively small I think but enough to produce effetcs).

4.Tidal Energy
I also agree that this type of energy is one of the future sources to have a big real impact on each country. I would however correct something that was said. There is not anywhere in the world a tidal power plant that is working and supplying energy to the electric network. There is several projects being studied. I could also tell you about the first and only tidal station to be connected to the electric network that was working during the year of 99 in Azores, Portugal. However after some time being working it had to be disconnected for problems cause by the adversities of the sea and inexperience in this area. The station is being recovered. I believe that it shouldn’t take long to make tidal power available as there are already several large projects being prepared, of course that with new technologies how long is too long is very hard to tell.

5.Eolic Energy
Another source that should be explored and where the potential is huge, of course it takes a lot of investment to produce at mass scale but it’s widely accepted that it should be profitable and doesn’t present many difficulties. It could be at a first stage introduced to small populations has its done now and in the future improve its capacity.

6.Network Improvment
It is more than accepted that a good electric network is one of the steps to have more flexibility and prevent blackouts like those in NY. The US should invest a lot of money in the network as a first step because they have a very weak network that needs a lot of improvement. Essential to any country.

7.Public Transportation
Another measure to decrease oil dependacy is to reduce the number of cars increasing the public transportation offer of hydrogen, electric and gas bus and metro and trains. This is essential too if a government wants to take seriously the environmental impact, and most importantly the economy.

8.Fiscal Benefits
As it’s been said already I also agree on this. Fiscal benefits should be given to buying home solar panels even if its just for water heating, public transportation, etc. It should serve essentially as an education tool to alternative forms of energy sources.


Finally I would just add some facts. As I said a long time ago in another thread, fusion reactor will only be available around 2050. that’s according to a treaty the US signed with other countries and where the US is responsible for the appear of this technology, I should also add that its estimated the oil ends around 2050… But when this technology is available and if its clean and secure enough I’m in favour.
Another note is on coal plants, the US has already planned the construction of 90 new coal plants to prevent economy crisis and asian countries like China, India… have around 1000 new coal plants planned.


Rui Monteiro.


P.S. I apologise for my English errors….

 

[Cliff_J]

Well said Rui. Couple thoughts reading your post.

Tidal energy wouldn't be very simple to implement - the enviromental studies alone could hold it up for years and is the new tool used by those who wish to slow progress. Its not like I'm in support of ruining the environment, far from it, but the ability to implement large public works projects takes a lot of political savvy to keep the scope larger than focusing on a few acres of habitat.

And public transportation is not a viable option in many places based on the years of poorly managed expansion. When I lived in Minneapolis the city bus was a great option as it went from my apartment in a nice suburb directly to downtown where the jobs were located. But here in Atlanta its very different as the downtown area is incredibly expensive and businesses have many advantages to being located in the suburbs and its similar for housing. So as a result of simple economics the expansion has created a massive amount of suburb-to-suburb traffic over a huge geographic area that would be near impossible to service with a train or bus system. Having a lot of land isn't a good thing when it is utilized poorly and without good foresight.

Cliff

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Thank you for the words Cliff.

Tidal energy wouldn't be very simple to implement - the enviromental studies alone could hold it up for years and is the new tool used by those who wish to slow progress. Its not like I'm in support of ruining the environment, far from it, but the ability to implement large public works projects takes a lot of political savvy to keep the scope larger than focusing on a few acres of habitat.

I understand your concern, but i don't really know to what extent environmental studies would prevent the implementaion of tidal energy, I'm saying this taking into account the Azores example i stated because i don't recall hearing or reading objections in terms of environmental impact, I'm not saying there wasn't any but i don't recall. And, at least here, it had the support from politicians.

And public transportation is not a viable option in many places based on the years of poorly managed expansion. When I lived in Minneapolis the city bus was a great option as it went from my apartment in a nice suburb directly to downtown where the jobs were located. But here in Atlanta its very different as the downtown area is incredibly expensive and businesses have many advantages to being located in the suburbs and its similar for housing. So as a result of simple economics the expansion has created a massive amount of suburb-to-suburb traffic over a huge geographic area that would be near impossible to service with a train or bus system. Having a lot of land isn't a good thing when it is utilized poorly and without good foresight.

That's very intersting to hear, i wasn't familiar with those situations or at least never thought of them. It sure would be complicated to have a effective system of public tranportation in those areas, i would be very intersted in reading any studies regarding that. Do you know if there is any available?



Rui M.

 

[Cliff_J]

For the tidal generation I don't have any direct examples but a large number of improvements ranging from cleaning beaches to rebuilding highways seems to get bogged down in enviromental concerns. If it is going to be built on the beach and have access to the water, it better have a lot of public support so the politicians can support it without fear. Many people living on the western coast are strong enviromental supporters and make haste decisions that would likely not include proper information - for example they increase smog controls on their cars but yet do little to control the power generation plants that creates 80% of their pollution. (and without sounding like too much of a cynic, if you watch/read any of what's happening here for the elections, a lot of the country makes decisions based on little information)

For the suburb phenomenon I don't have any sources but the concept of changing traffic patterns was mentioned on a Discovery program about traffic. It went on to inteview the guy who came up with congestion pricing which allows people to pay for using the carpool lane even if they are not qualified. It speeds up the commute for everyone else with less traffic in the other lanes, raises money to help build more roadways, and cuts pollution. Sounds good to me! But here in Atl they voted down the "Lexus Lane" saying it discriminates. All my neighbors want to vote down a measure to expand the local roadway.

There seems to be a lot of info on the net about suburban sprawl and its negative effects but not as much on studies in terms of costs and solutions to fix it. If you find something would you please post a link.

Cliff

 

[Burnsys]

[deleted] Sorry, but we won't be discussing politics or conspiracy theory in this thread.

-Russ

 

[RuiMonteiro]

For the tidal generation I don't have any direct examples but a large number of improvements ranging from cleaning beaches to rebuilding highways seems to get bogged down in enviromental concerns. If it is going to be built on the beach and have access to the water, it better have a lot of public support so the politicians can support it without fear. Many people living on the western coast are strong enviromental supporters and make haste decisions that would likely not include proper information - for example they increase smog controls on their cars but yet do little to control the power generation plants that creates 80% of their pollution. (and without sounding like too much of a cynic, if you watch/read any of what's happening here for the elections, a lot of the country makes decisions based on little information)

It's somewhat disturbing to me how people are against effective and positive measures but at the same time are not against big real problems... Cynism and hypocrisy (not referring to you) is how US citizens are perceived by the Europeans and it seems correct. Of course and fortunally not all US citizens don't fall into that category and there are many Europeans with those charecteristics too, just to make sure people understand what i just wrote...

For the suburb phenomenon I don't have any sources but the concept of changing traffic patterns was mentioned on a Discovery program about traffic. It went on to inteview the guy who came up with congestion pricing which allows people to pay for using the carpool lane even if they are not qualified. It speeds up the commute for everyone else with less traffic in the other lanes, raises money to help build more roadways, and cuts pollution. Sounds good to me! But here in Atl they voted down the "Lexus Lane" saying it discriminates. All my neighbors want to vote down a measure to expand the local roadway.

I see, the traffic patterns should be interst to study.

I don't really know what a carpool lane is? I went searching into the dictionary what a carpool is but can't find a translation...

I'll try again to look for some information on the net.



Rui M.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't really know what a carpool lane is? I went searching into the dictionary what a carpool is but can't find a translation...

Some cities have special lanes for cars carrying 2 or more passengers. When a group of people get together and take turns driving each other to work, that's a carpool.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Some cities have special lanes for cars carrying 2 or more passengers. When a group of people get together and take turns driving each other to work, that's a carpool.

Thanks for the information. It's really intersting and an imaginative solution.

Now i can answer what Cliff said more properly regarding carpool lanes.
It does sounds good the idea of people who are not qualified paying to have access to this lane but in practise i don't see it working properly because a great amount of people either would join that system and pay to use the lane and therefore congestionating both the carpool lane and the other lanes or people wouldn't simply join and making this new method useless. I am taking into account that people would vote "yes" primarly, but of course they vote yes as an opinion that it would work but they aren't necessarly going to use it.

This could work however if it's set up a maximum of users that don't qualify but want to pay to use the carpool lane so that there isn't a saturation in the special lane, and as i see it this is the only solution that could work because it would prevent the system to become pointless. In the beginning the number of users should be an estimative and then if this works properly the number of users should be adapted to the time of the year and the results of the first test.

And i don't see this being discriminatory.


Rui M.

 

[tumor]

I don't think there is any real energy crisis,everything is made for profit.We could switch at any moment to the hydrogen or some other form of cleaner economy ,but
as long as oil makes more money for energy companies,humanity will live in misery.

 

[Cliff_J]

Rui - my bad on the word confusion - I thought carpool would be easier than High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane. Sometimes its too easy to assume..

The basis of congestion pricing is supply-demand and the author won a Nobel Prize for economics. Here's a page that has a link to the PDF of his paper (verbose) near the bottom and a link to his guidlines right after it and the guidlines is far easier to read.
http://www.vtpi.org/0_price.htm

In short, the price is set high enough to keep the usage low. Somewhere in California they have this system implemented and while more than half the motorists have the ability to pay to use the carpool lane it is still well below saturation. A survey revealed that most people purchased it as a backup in case they were late for work or congestion was bad and it would be worthwhile to pay the $3 or whatever fee on that day but otherwise they use the regular lanes. Computers monitor the carpool lane and the price is adjusted to keep the traffic level appropriate in that lane to keep all the cars moving at the speed limit or better.

I don't see discrimination either but there are deep historic wounds that have yet to be resolved by some. That's pretty common anywhere, especially when times are tough and blame is assigned to the usual suspects.

Maybe instead of saying "think globally, act locally" it should have just been "think globally, act globally" so people would think of things more as a system instead of discrete elements. Once everything is reduced to pieces its easy to be selfish and get local optimization but hurt the overall system. Where's my magic wand...

I think the idea of increased nuclear power production is a very good use of technology and resources with low costs (unlike solar with its hidden costs of manufacturing the panels). But the implementation challenge is massive, 3 mile Island and Chernobyl were very well covered by the media and the Chernobyl site is still a mess. All a politician would need to say is "...do you want that in your backyard..." and emotion overrules intelligent discussion about the real dangers.

Cliff

 

[4newton]

Solutions

There is no energy problem there is just a political problem. Any government that has not provided for the future needs of the country is a failure. Any government the uses restrictions, limits, conservation, or rationing to solve a problem that it has all the resources for is a failure.

We have and have had for over 50 years all the energy that we will ever need for the next 2000 years or more. Only by political pressure from shortsighted Dark Age intellectuals have we failed to develop this energy.

Nuclear power is the answer.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no energy problem there is just a political problem. Any government that has not provided for the future needs of the country is a failure. Any government the uses restrictions, limits, conservation, or rationing to solve a problem that it has all the resources for is a failure.

We have and have had for over 50 years all the energy that we will ever need for the next 2000 years or more. Only by political pressure from shortsighted Dark Age intellectuals have we failed to develop this energy.

Nuclear power is the answer.

That is true except for what to do about cars and ships. They would still need to be converted over to some form of electric power - battery, fuel cell, or other. That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.

 

[Aquamarine]

That is true except for what to do about cars and ships. They would still need to be converted over to some form of electric power - battery, fuel cell, or other. That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.

Nuclear energy is an excellent way to generate hydrogen as a fuel for transportation:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf70.htm

But hydrogen has lots of problems, this may be a better solution:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

About other energy sources:

Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed.

In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.htm

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Cliff,

Thanks for the information. That's a good system for the carpool lane then, very intersting and imaginative.
I took a look at the site you provided and also saw some information on what London did when was decided to keep cars out of the center of the city and for what i read it seems other cities are trying to implement this system which also seems a good idea.

I think the idea of increased nuclear power production is a very good use of technology and resources with low costs (unlike solar with its hidden costs of manufacturing the panels).

I don't know exactly what are the hiden costs of manufacturing the panels. I can tell you again about that solar central in Portugal and the investor is private and not a big company. And the production of solar panels is getting bigger, i think Greece leads the production.

That's not a trivial task, but certainly converting all of our gas/oil/coal power to nuclear is the first task.

As i see it and many other people see it converting all of the gas, oil and coal power to nuclear (or other any energy source) is a big mistake. The reason for this is very simple, the uranium reserves are not ilimited and we would eventually fall into the same problems of finding alternative energy sources and the problem of oil dependacy that many countries suffer today would become a uranium dependacy. I'm not saying that nuclear power shouldn't be used at all, I'm saying, as i said before, energy sources should be diversified, its benefical for everyone.

My proposal called for heavy research for fusion power. Fusion power would be nice, but the truth is, we really don't need it. But I fear that we won't build another nuclear plant until we hit peak oil production in 50-100 years and the economics (and environmental problems) are too ugly to ignore.

Saying that the peak of oil production will be in 50-100 years is completely irrealistic. First the oil reserves are not estimated to last that long, second as time goes by the oil available decreases and because of the decrease in the reserves and the oil demand that increases every year the price will go up to a value making oil useless, a simple law of market.



Rui M.

 

[Cliff_J]

Maybe it starts with education: somewhere people are learning that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe. They need to be taught that it isn't.

I'd say its pretty universal and the media did nothing for it with the 3MI and Chernobyl coverage (even though that could use more to help raise money to fix it before it gets worse). Its like what the movie Jaws did for public perception of sharks and so on. As a kid I remember both being mentioned a lot and no one mentioned the pollution and deaths from other power generation. Maybe because of the vested interest in the coal production in the state and economic benefit of keeping that industry around.

Ever watch the Penn & Teller show on Showtime? Its entertaining and thought-provoking as they examine both sides of an issue (and then poke fun at one side). The show they did on recycling was very interesting as it was based on a paper that showed recycling as a waste of resources. They brought up the barge in the 80s as a media event that worked well with an EPA report that said the number of landfills was decreasing (without mention of the size of the landfills). Their point was how we have been tricked by subsidies and inaccurate information that leads us to support a wasteful activity. The only thing they said they supported was aluminum recycling and made no mention of industrial recycling which both have clear numbers (and with aluminum the electricity needed to convert bauxite is staggering).

Aquamarine - that was an awesome link for biodiesel. If you've ever driven through farmland in the US its amazing how much productive land the government pays farmers to keep idle that could easily be turned into production for energy purposes. At least they've started testing something:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publications/facts/html/biomass00.htm

But I think it would be an easy sell to the population that such a readily available source is already in their backyard and under-utilized. I especially like the EROI method of determining the viability of a fuel source. And since the sulfur content of biodiesel should be low (ignorance?) then pollution would easily be on par with current vehicles without many modifications.

My question would be why Europe with its far higher diesel car density hasn't made progress to adopt biodiesel when their fuel prices are so incredibly high in comparison to the US? I know that Britian has made efforts to switch cars over to LPG, but this seems so much easier (assuming people drive diesels).

Cliff

 

[hitssquad]

Price of fuel vs that of taxed fuel and price of biodiesel vs that of diesel

My question would be why Europe with its far higher diesel car density hasn't made progress to adopt biodiesel when their fuel prices are so incredibly high in comparison to the US?

Before-tax mineral fuel prices in Europe are about the same as they are in the US. Fuel taxes in Europe are higher, though, making the pump price higher:

• taxes comprise $2.82 of the $4.07 gallon in France, $2.56 of the $3.91 gallon in Germany, and $2.53 of the $3.97 gallon of fuel in Italy. In the U.S., fuel taxes comprise about 39 cents of the average $1.64 gallon of gas.

What is high everywhere is the before-tax price of biodiesel in comparison with that of mineral diesel. This would help explain why, in Europe, mineral diesel is preferred over biodiesel.

 

[Aquamarine]

More on Biodiesel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel

But I think it would be an easy sell to the population that such a readily available source is already in their backyard and under-utilized.

There seems already to be a growing grassrot interest, this forum is quite active:
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/default.asp

A somewhat optimistic thread, "Can oil producing algae be grown at home ?"
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3414

 

[Cliff_J]

Umm, I just watched part of a program on the History channel about what happened at 3 Mile Island. I almost change my vote from nuclear to anything else after that, no wonder the population doesn't want more nuclear plants after the extremely poor planning by the designers and actions by the company running the plant. After the first nuclear power plant ran by the military had its problems I guess I assumed there would be better planning, but I guess maybe even partial ignorance is bliss.

Cliff

 

[russ_watters]

Could you be more specific as to what the program said, Cliff_J - I studied the TMI incident in school and the conclusion I drew is that the incident shows how safe nuclear power is.

 

[gech]

No real solution

I think you had the right idea in starting this thread, but you're assuming alot. I think only Brewnog touched upon this, which everyone else passed over. What you are assuming is that we have the time to implement these solutions. Do we though?
40% of our (United States) energy comes from oil. Domestic production of oil peaked in the 1970s. Today we are dependent on other areas to provide for our (relatively large) oil needs. Unfortunately, these sources (the Middle East) will reach their peak, by some estimates, in the year 2010, 2015, 2020, or in some places, right now. Oil is behind every part of our everyday lives. Our economy is dependent on oil. When the output of an oil reserve has peaked, it means it is now heading downward. This means that there will be less production and the obvious negative economic effects are numerous and wide-ranging.
To put it simply, the world will produce less and less oil, and the economies that we have built around our energy resources will fall. Hard. So yes, solutions are sorely needed. I think addressing this issue is perhaps a start so I'm glad you brought the energy issue to bear. I think some of the solutions presented are optimistic, but nonetheless moot if we cannot employ them to replace oil (Oil is everything, especially in the U.S.) in time. I liked how many of you linked to articles which talked of potential energy sources. Here's another link which addressess many of those http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/AlternativesToOil.html .

I don't know if you can really solve this problem. Some of you may have supported altering our lifestyles, like driving more fuel efficient cars. It is actually a fact that we will have to adapt and change. We will need to reorganize our communities, and start "living locally". Everything we need will have to be produced "in our area". If we can do this, then we can soften the blow we will take as we run out of cheap oil.

 

[Aquamarine]

I think you had the right idea in starting this thread, but you're assuming alot. I think only Brewnog touched upon this, which everyone else passed over. What you are assuming is that we have the time to implement these solutions. Do we though?
40% of our (United States) energy comes from oil. Domestic production of oil peaked in the 1970s. Today we are dependent on other areas to provide for our (relatively large) oil needs. Unfortunately, these sources (the Middle East) will reach their peak, by some estimates, in the year 2010, 2015, 2020, or in some places, right now. Oil is behind every part of our everyday lives. Our economy is dependent on oil. When the output of an oil reserve has peaked, it means it is now heading downward. This means that there will be less production and the obvious negative economic effects are numerous and wide-ranging.
To put it simply, the world will produce less and less oil, and the economies that we have built around our energy resources will fall. Hard. So yes, solutions are sorely needed. I think addressing this issue is perhaps a start so I'm glad you brought the energy issue to bear. I think some of the solutions presented are optimistic, but nonetheless moot if we cannot employ them to replace oil (Oil is everything, especially in the U.S.) in time. I liked how many of you linked to articles which talked of potential energy sources. Here's another link which addressess many of those http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/AlternativesToOil.html .

The usual malthusian scenario that have always been wrong before. The link contains gross inaccuracies.

There is enough nuclear fuel to last at least thousands of year. Certainly enough time to get into space and to build an economy based on solar power:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46366

Read my prior links on biodiesel. The price of fuel for transportation can rise but not more than to the cost of producing biodiesel.

I don't know if you can really solve this problem. Some of you may have supported altering our lifestyles, like driving more fuel efficient cars. It is actually a fact that we will have to adapt and change. We will need to reorganize our communities, and start "living locally". Everything we need will have to be produced "in our area". If we can do this, then we can soften the blow we will take as we run out of cheap oil.

This is of course what the extreme environmentalists want, energy crises or not. They hope for a breakdown of the capitalistic society which will create a socialistic/anarchistic utopia.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

There is enough nuclear fuel to last at least thousands of year. Certainly enough time to get into space and to build an economy based on solar power:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46366

I just took a look at the links you provided. The first report from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency is highly speculative. Sometime ago i found several reports stating that even taken into account the unknown and undiscovered uranium resources, at current rate of uranium consumption, it would last around 150 years. So current estimates (with current comsuption of uranium) project that uranium use should end around 2060 or so.

Another problem is the geographical distribution of the uranium reserves, which the same report makes believe that they are more well distributed then oil. The uranium reserves are well localized and that would take us back to the dependence problem, not counting with the processing of the uranium, which only a few countrys have the technology.

But let me say again that I'm not against or in favor of new nuclear plants, i do am against, like i already stated on this thread, substituting all the oil and coal plants for nuclear plants. For obvious reasons it would be better economically and socially that the energy resources of one country isn't based primarly on one type of energy but on several.

On a final note regarding oil and uranium dependance, just because one country is rich in a determined energy source it doesn't mean they will use it before using another country resources. Thats what's happening in the US, they don't have the need to import has much oil has they do, the US has one of the biggest oil reserves, they do this to prevent a faillure on import oil supply and to make sure the US will have enough oil to use when the world reserves are low.



Rui.

 

[Aquamarine]

More on the supply of uranium and thorium:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm

The only way to get the low supply figures quoted by the malthusians is to ignore thorium, breeder technology and that higher higher uranium prices will automatically increase economically usable resources.

On other other power sources:

Sun, wind, tides and waves cannot be controlled to provide directly either continuous base-load power, or peak-load power when it is needed.

In practical terms they are therefore limited to some 10-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, and cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for coal or nuclear power, however important they may become in particular areas with favourable conditions

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.htm

This may change if hydrogen or other ways to store massive amounts of energy ever becomes feasible. But even so there will energy lost converting to and from storage.

 

[RuiMonteiro]

The only way to get the low supply figures quoted by the malthusians is to ignore thorium, breeder technology and that higher higher uranium prices will automatically increase economically usable resources.

I certanly am not ignoring thorium or how technology will evolve through the years. What I'm saying is that those reports are very speculative (also including the last links provided), it's easy to see that.
And regarding proven and estimated uranium resources the main problem is not their physical limitation but their economical limitation, as the uranium price starts to get higher (and it will also suffer peaks of high cost due to many unpredictable factors) it won't automatically increase the investment on new technology to make use of other type of high cost uranium resources. This is what is happening with oil. With a current elevated oil price no one is investing on new technlogy to extract other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources, simply because there are many factors involved, it's not that linear. I'm not saying this on what i assume because I'm not an economist but I'm saying this based on reputed economists and not some malthusian theory from the 18th century.


Rui.

 

[Aquamarine]

I certanly am not ignoring thorium or how technology will evolve through the years. What I'm saying is that those reports are very speculative (also including the last links provided), it's easy to see that.
And regarding proven and estimated uranium resources the main problem is not their physical limitation but their economical limitation, as the uranium price starts to get higher (and it will also suffer peaks of high cost due to many unpredictable factors) it won't automatically increase the investment on new technology to make use of other type of high cost uranium resources. This is what is happening with oil. With a current elevated oil price no one is investing on new technlogy to extract other un-familiar and abudant types of oil resources, simply because there are many factors involved, it's not that linear. I'm not saying this on what i assume because I'm not an economist but I'm saying this based on reputed economists and not some malthusian theory from the 18th century.

Those new technologies are less speculative than those required for a hydrogen economy or for other power sources. There have already been functioning breeder and thorium reactors.

And in contrast to oil, uranium is ubiquitous in nature. There will not be a sudden decrease as when large oil fields deplete. Just a slow conversion to minerals with lower concentration of uranium.

Regarding uranium price, if it increases, it will greatly increase available resources without have a large effect on final energy price.

The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htm

 

[Cliff_J]

Could you be more specific as to what the program said, Cliff_J - I studied the TMI incident in school and the conclusion I drew is that the incident shows how safe nuclear power is.

Sure, here's what I remember.

General maintenence ends up causing something to go wrong. Ok, no big problems.

Pressure builds up and a safety vent allows excess pressure to escape. Still no problem.

Safety vent sticks but light in control room goes out as computer merely tells them the signal was sent and not the position of the valve. The pressure drops allowing more coolant to evaporate and temperature rises.

Somewhere in the operator training to never let the reactor "go solid" by completely filling with water and the vibrating pumps from low water level the operators drop the control rods and completely shut off flow of water.

Designers are unreachable by phone, NRC is unable to get in as only one phone line exists and all they get are busy signals.

Power company lies to NRC and public (repeatedely) and downplays extent of problem (no idea on timing here, memory fuzzy). The lies told here seem to be only one step shy of the Soviet government's intial lies about Cherynobl but I digress.

Designers of reactor finally get through and tell operators to turn on water, forget the "go solid" or not just get some water in there to get temperature down. Temp gauges only go to 700F but reactor is at 4000F and reaches china syndrome at 5000F and has been sitting without coolant for 15 hours. Estimates are that 30-60 mins more without coolant would have been threshold for meltdown.

Carter sends out a direct person from NRC to run the show, finds that now the long running reaction has filled containment room with lots of H2 that could easily explode. Some NRC people thinks its nearly critical, others think its days away. Carter flies out and makes on-site visit since he trusts his man and has experience with nuclear subs in navy. Later NRC people find mistake in calculations and find H2 is days away from critical.

One person tries to go in and finds water inside reactor that is to be pure is actually green and bubbling, holding a beaker of it for a few minutes would have killed him and that he measured 10,000 REMs which they said was a lot. Nothing besides robots has gone into building since.

So here is my short list of issues I compiled from the show:

- Poor training where 'go solid' was placed above meltdown
- unclear control interface (light that goes out regardless of valve position)
- gauges that do not allow monitoring of temperature (although if its that hot shouldn't common sense overrule 'go solid'??)
- no CC cameras at all to see vent or inside the reactor or even the flooded basement as the vent leaked out the water
- one phone line
- no direct communication to designers

Obviously I've left stuff out and maybe got a couple things out of order but anyways it didn't paint a real safe picture of what happened. The message of the shows was that ignorance, complacence, and confidence in technology leaves us vulnerable to failures. They mentioned that the promise was that nuclear power was suppossed to produce electricity so cheap that it wouldn't make sense to meter it. The series of shows went on to feature the Kursk as the sign the russian military lacked the funds to maintain an advanced sub and the space shuttle as a sign that NASA implemented policies that placed frequent missions over the safety of the crew.

The NRC and all nuclear facilities are suppossed to have learned from the mistakes made and implemented changes to make things safer. But 3MI and Chernobyl are separated only be severity and luck in the historic TV shows I've seen and this show shocked me at how close we came to a meltdown.

Cliff