YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Astronuc]

Trash - or more accurately biomass - to gasoline.
http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1963
Byogy Renewables licenses technology

The system is relatively inexpensive and focuses on using biomass waste streams and non-food energy crops rather than food products such as corn.

Biomass includes garbage, biosolids from wastewater treatment plants, green waste such as lawn clippings, food waste and any type of livestock manure. And using biomass instead of crops such as corn won't strain food supplies.

From the university.
http://www.che.tamu.edu/department/...-could-be-in-fuel-tanks-by-2010-with-new-tech

From Byogy
http://www.byogy.com/about/whatwedo/better.html

 

[OmCheeto]

Is this "capture & store undergound" explained and discussed anywhere? I have to admit I don't understand just how this would work. What would keep the CO2 from bubbling back up? What if it leaks into my basement? What keeps me from suffocating to death down there?

Really, what structure will prevent the CO2 from migrating back to the surface? What's the design life of that structure? If Yucca Mtn has to demonstrate confinement for ten thousand or one million years (based on > ten half lives), how long does the CO2 storage have to be designed for (actually forever?)

I really would like to find out more about this idea.

Nature often has the answer.
Are you familiar with Ivan's algae-oil idea?
Do you know where the oil and coal that are generating all this extra CO₂came from in the first place?
Do you know how long that oil and coal kept that carbon locked up?

Ivan thinks of the oil as a new fuel, which it is.
But I also see it as a solution to carbon sequestration.
I did the calculations a while back on how long it would take us to remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere by using corn as the storage medium.(most any plant will do)
I came up with something like 90 years.
You get to eat the corn, but the cob and rest of the plant have to be chopped up, mixed with a bit of water, and pumped into all of our old oil wells and coal mines.
Algae has the advantage of locking up the carbon at a much higher, and much cheaper rate.
And since it is already water borne and small, you don't have to waste any energy chopping it up. You just pour it back into the ground. And it stays there, for millions and millions of years. Eventually, it will turn into oil and coal.

Somewhere, in this 4 year long thread, I read that the coal plants should be shut down.
Feeding the CO₂ that the coal plants produce to algae farms, pumping the algae into the ground would effectively create a zero CO₂ energy source.

This is already being done, although I don't think they are sequestering the algae, yet.

If you are worried that pumping lots of water into the ground would be wasteful, you should also recall that for every gallon of gas you burn, roughly a gallon of water is generated. So we would just be pumping back in what we took out in the first place.

 

[russ_watters]

I did the calculations a while back on how long it would take us to remove all the excess carbon from the atmosphere by using corn as the storage medium.(most any plant will do)
I came up with something like 90 years.
You get to eat the corn, but the cob and rest of the plant have to be chopped up, mixed with a bit of water, and pumped into all of our old oil wells and coal mines.
Algae has the advantage of locking up the carbon at a much higher, and much cheaper rate.
And since it is already water borne and small, you don't have to waste any energy chopping it up. You just pour it back into the ground. And it stays there, for millions and millions of years. Eventually, it will turn into oil and coal.

How much corn and how much algae are we talking about?

 

[OmCheeto]

How much corn and how much algae are we talking about?

I only used corn because I was able to determine it's yield per acre.
I used all of the arable land on the planet used for harvestable crops and inserted the numbers for corn.
Everyone still gets to eat their food, but they have to sequester all of the remaining plant fiber.

It was a simple plug and chug math problem.
I believe that I also determined that plant fiber was about 50% carbon.

Let's see if I can recreate it real fast:
the total mass of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 3e15 kg
approximately 19,824,000 km² are arable
corn averages about 250 bu/acre
70lbs/bushel corn
247 acres/km²
1 harvest per year
assuming 1/3 the mass of the plant is edible(sequester the other 2/3)
lb=.4536 kg
50% carbon per pound

77.2 years

Algae supposedly has a much higher yield than any land based plants, so with a world wide concerted effort, we could probably do it in under 20 years.

I haven't done the calculations for algae, as I just thought of it this morning.

But with people hacking rain forests down like mad, the above solutions are somewhat moot. Why try and put out a fire when someone else keeps throwing in gasoline and firewood.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are you familiar with Ivan's algae-oil idea?

Thanks for the credit, but I am just promoting the ideas of others.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf

 

[gmax137]

I have a couple of questions - mostly I'm trying to understand how this (pumping the "non food" portion of the plants underground) compares to what happens now.

First, how much of the carbon in a plant comes from the air, and how much comes from the soil? Is it really all from the air?

If/when a plant stalk & roots are turned under, does the carbon return to the air? How exactly does this occur? What's the time scale? I know that for some crops, the farmers burn the fields after harvest (I have seen this in sugarcane fields). In that case I guess the carbon goes right back to the air. But I really don't know about just turning the stalks into the fields.

I think a lot of the "non food" part of the plants is now used to feed livestock (Im pretty sure that's where the corn cobs go now). What happens to that carbon now? For that matter, what happens to the carbon in the 1/3 you figure we eat?

I doubt that it would be possible to produce the yield we see for a crop like corn on every acre of arable land. What's the current production compared to the value you are assuming?

I don't believe that corn stalks are 50% (by weight) carbon. I think they are mostly water (because, when you dry them out they are nearly weightless).

Please don't take these questions as an attack on your idea. I like the general idea (which really boils down to using solar energy to close the carbon cycle). Burning coal releases the energy in the carbon - hydrogen - oxygen bonds, while growing plants use the incoming solar energy to re-create those bonds. What concerns me is whether this can really work - can we grow new plants faster than we burn the plants that grew millions of years ago?

 

[OmCheeto]

I have a couple of questions - mostly I'm trying to understand how this (pumping the "non food" portion of the plants underground) compares to what happens now.

First, how much of the carbon in a plant comes from the air, and how much comes from the soil? Is it really all from the air?

I'm not a biologist, but my guess is yes.

If/when a plant stalk & roots are turned under, does the carbon return to the air? How exactly does this occur? What's the time scale? I know that for some crops, the farmers burn the fields after harvest (I have seen this in sugarcane fields). In that case I guess the carbon goes right back to the air. But I really don't know about just turning the stalks into the fields.

My understanding is that carbon will stay in the plant until a critical temperature and conditions are reached.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t7381j025827h0n8/" on production of CH4 and CO2 from Peat in a Natural and Flooded Boreal Forest Wetland
CH4 and CO2 production rates approximately tripled for every 10 °C temperature increase and may have been linked to to the metabolic rate of the methanogens or the fermentors independent of the substrate quality.

I've not found any numbers for corn stalk carbon release in Kansas though.

I think a lot of the "non food" part of the plants is now used to feed livestock (Im pretty sure that's where the corn cobs go now). What happens to that carbon now? For that matter, what happens to the carbon in the 1/3 you figure we eat?

I would imagine it goes to the sewage treatment plant. Are you suggesting we flush our toilets into the sequestration caverns? Hmmm... Good Idea. That would cut the time down by a third.

I doubt that it would be possible to produce the yield we see for a crop like corn on every acre of arable land. What's the current production compared to the value you are assuming?

You know, the first time I calculated this, I spent about 15 minutes finding the numbers. I hope you don't think I'm an expert.
But you can expand on my idea on an international level by determining the caloric intake and food composition of the various parts of the world.

I don't believe that corn stalks are 50% (by weight) carbon. I think they are mostly water (because, when you dry them out they are nearly weightless).

You caught me there. And if you look closely, you will also see that my calculations are based on all of the CO₂ in the atmosphere. Not just the 30-40% excess. But the numbers are a bit confusing. Some sources say that much of the excess carbon is being absorbed by our oceans. So it's really difficult to determine how much excess carbon we need to get rid of.

Please don't take these questions as an attack on your idea. I like the general idea (which really boils down to using solar energy to close the carbon cycle). Burning coal releases the energy in the carbon - hydrogen - oxygen bonds, while growing plants use the incoming solar energy to re-create those bonds. What concerns me is whether this can really work - can we grow new plants faster than we burn the plants that grew millions of years ago?

That's actually a very good question. The algae needs sunlight to absorb the carbon. We may want to build any new coal burning plants to the southwest. I've not done the calculations on how large an algae farm would be required to clean up a large coal burning plant.

I believe MIT is studying the process though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I didn't review to see if this had been mentioned, but fyi

...The idea behind the venture is to create plankton "blooms," or large-scale growth, by seeding the ocean with iron, which stimulates plankton growth. As the plankton grows, it consumes carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and removes it from the atmosphere.

Planktos is not the first to come up with the idea of capturing or sequestering carbon through plankton blooms. But the Foster City, Calif.-based company appears to be the first trying to commercialize ongoing research on the topic.

During the trip, the crew of about 16 will seed thousands of miles of the Pacific Ocean with iron. After the growth phase, a percentage of that plankton will die and sink. Once the plankton are below 500 meters, they sequester the consumed carbon for centuries, said David Kubiak, director of communications for Planktos...

http://news.cnet.com/Seeding-the-ocean-to-capture-carbon/2100-11395_3-6182861.html

I read that either this or another group was not able to keep their bloom alive. I think another group was working the same idea with algae.

 

[Astronuc]

Could coffee be the alternative fuel of the future?
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=could-coffee-be-the-alternative-fue-2008-12-10

Researchers from the University of Nevada, Reno, have discovered that coffee can be turned into an alternative fuel other than caffeine: biodiesel. And you can have your coffee and drink it too. No need to use the fresh stuff, old grounds are more than up to the task, according to material scientist Mano Misra and his colleagues.

Even after being subjected to the rigors of brewing, roughly 15 percent of the weight of dried coffee grounds is oil, which, much like palm and soybean oil, can be converted into biodiesel. The coffee has the added benefit of not being a food source, like palm oil and soybeans.

Nevertheless, more than 16 billion pounds of coffee are produced globally every year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Misra estimates that the grounds from that haul could be used to make as much as 340 million gallons of biodiesel. For their part, the researchers turned grounds donated by Starbucks into biodiesel that had the added advantage of smelling like a fresh cup o' Joe.
. . . .

It should be done after the coffee is made. Coffee grounds to fuel is a great idea. We compost ours.

Extracting the oil, and then converting grounds to fuel would be even better. A group at Texas A&M have invented a process that apparently converts biomass to fuel.

See post #246

 

[russ_watters]

Off topic posts moved here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=290131

 

[Topher925]

I doubt biomass has the capability of solving our energy problems. We may be able to produce a considerable amount of power from it but there just isn't enough energy there for it to be a significant source. Compared to that of a modern solar panel or solar thermal plant, how efficient is a plant leaf or algae anyway? I think I remember seeing numbers for a corn stalk leaf only being able to convert less than 1% of sunlight into usable chemical energy. Compare that to the ~15% of your modern solar panel and its pretty easy to see what's better.

I see that energy storage is starting to become more popular and I think is key to developing a stable power infrastructure based on micro-generation. With out it, most sources of alternative energy like wind, solar, and tidal can never reach their full potential.

http://www.beaconpower.com/products/EnergyStorageSystems/index.htm

 

[brewnog]

I doubt biomass has the capability of solving our energy problems. We may be able to produce a considerable amount of power from it but there just isn't enough energy there for it to be a significant source. Compared to that of a modern solar panel or solar thermal plant, how efficient is a plant leaf or algae anyway? I think I remember seeing numbers for a corn stalk leaf only being able to convert less than 1% of sunlight into usable chemical energy. Compare that to the ~15% of your modern solar panel and its pretty easy to see what's better.

Find me a solar panel which can cover 1 acre of land for less than fifteen times the cost of plants.

My firm belief is that biomass (either first or second generation) has an important role in our future energy supplies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Find me a solar panel which can cover 1 acre of land for less than fifteen times the cost of plants.

My firm belief is that biomass (either first or second generation) has an important role in our future energy supplies.

Indeed! And the lifetime cost ratio is probably much greater than 15:1. There is also the issue that, at least for the foreseeable future, we will not be flying solar powered airplanes, or running solar powered ships, tractor trailers, busses, or heavy trains.

 

[Count Iblis]

http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/corporate/2007/Q3/energie-eiland.asp"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.kema.com/corporate/news/corporate/2007/Q3/energie-eiland.asp"

They have solved a Dutch problem - they don't have any hills or mountains. We've been pumping water uphill for energy storage for a better part of a century.

 

[Topher925]

Its not about cost for every acre you cover, its cost per kw generated. I came across an article not to long ago that compared the cradle to grave costs of solar cells, solar thermal, and a couple biofuel energy sources. I'll try and find it again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Its not about cost for every acre you cover, its cost per kw generated. I came across an article not to long ago that compared the cradle to grave costs of solar cells, solar thermal, and a couple biofuel energy sources. I'll try and find it again.

Note that most people now understand that corn-ethanol is a loser, so comparisons to that option would be useless.

 

[Astronuc]

NRG teams with ESolar for 500 mw of solar thermal

NRG Energy signed a deal with ESolar to build 500 mw of solar thermal at sites in California and the Southwest . .
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSN2334679020090223

LOS ANGELES, Feb 23 (Reuters) - NRG Energy (NRG.N) stepped in the solar power arena for the first time with an agreement with solar developer eSolar to create up to 500 megawatts of solar thermal plants in the U.S. Southwest, the two companies announced on Monday.

Independent power producer NRG will invest $10 million in the venture, which is designed to develop a series of solar thermal power plants with Pasadena, California-based eSolar.

An eSolar spokeswoman said, "This is the first fully funded utility scale renewable energy deal since global markets went south last year."

NRG said it will gain equity and associated development rights for three projects, and a portfolio of power purchase agreements to develop, build, own and operate up to 11 eSolar solar plants. The first plant is due to come on-line in 2011.

Princeton, New Jersey-based NRG has 48 power plants generating 24,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to serve 20,000 households.

. . . .

NRG's eSolar Investment Has Tax, Green Benefits
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123543749926554727.html

NRG Energy Inc. will invest $10 million in closely held eSolar Inc., a company that designs modular power plants using solar-tower technology.

The deal stands to give eSolar the resources it needs to expand, while allowing NRG to accelerate the greening of its own energy portfolio.

More arrangements like the one between NRG and eSolar are expected, as cash-strapped renewable-energy companies join with larger, profitable energy companies looking for tax shelters to offset profits and to increase the renewable component of their energy businesses. Such "tax-equity investors" have been harder for renewable-energy companies to find since the stock market's collapse, which left fewer companies worried about paying income taxes.

Under the arrangement, NRG, a Princeton, N.J., company with conventional fossil-fuel and nuclear power plants generating 24,000 megawatts of electricity, is garnering the right to invest potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in coming years to build, own and operate solar plants using eSolar's technology.

The agreement covers development of as much as 500 megawatts of solar-power plants, including a 240-megawatt development that eSolar intends to build for Edison International's Southern California Edison unit.
. . . .

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/12/121544/0223eSolarFinal.pdf

http://www.nrgenergy.com/

 

[mheslep]

Ug, that's a fairly poor Reuters article. 'Tower of mirrors'? Nothing on cost, nothing on transmission issues, though that may simply not be available yet.

 

[Astronuc]

Press releases often do not go into technical details. In the electrical industry, transmission is a major issue. Ostensibly, such plants can be build relatively close to existing transmission lines.

 

[mheslep]

Press releases often do not go into technical details. In the electrical industry, transmission is a major issue. Ostensibly, such plants can be build relatively close to existing transmission lines.

True, but I didn't consider general cost of plant, or whether additional line would be needed a technical detail; they're fundamental. In the renewable electrical industry, transmission is a huge issue because solar and wind are specifically often not close to transmission lines, they're in the boonies - hence the big fuss about the 120mi http://www.sdge.com/sunrisepowerlink/SPL_NL1.pdf" from the states of transmission line regulation and right of way.

 

[OmCheeto]

FYI -

The National Academies Summit on America's Energy Future:
Summary of a Meeting

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12450 (Free downloadable pdf available)

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/energy/index.htm

You can alsohttp://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12450#toc".

11
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12450&page=85"​

Achieving an energy regime that meets human demands while protecting the global environment will require changing the relationship between energy use and economic activity. As several speakers at the summit pointed out, these two measures are correlated (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12450&page=86#p200160219960086001"). However, the correlation is not invariant.

From 1977 to 1985, the U.S. economy grew 27 percent while the nation’s use of oil fell 17 percent. Oil imports fell by half, and imports from the Persian Gulf dropped by 87 percent. “It broke OPEC’s pricing power for a decade, because we customers, especially in America, … found that we could save oil faster than OPEC could conveniently sell less oil,” said Amory Lovins.

As Lovins pointed out, economic theorists have assumed that energy intensity in the world will fall by about 1 percent a year because of increasing efficiency. “If we could make that about 2 percent a year, it would stabilize carbon emissions with economic projections. If we could make that more like 3 percent per year, carbon emissions would fall and stabilize the climate fairly quickly.”

from commentary regarding Figure 11.1
To solve the energy problem, the United States must increase its energy efficiency four- to fivefold, while the developing world grows in such a way that its energy intensity does not increase dramatically, said Steven Chu (Figure 11.2). “The real question is whether the developing countries will follow in the footsteps of the United States, Australia, and Canada,” said Chu. Or will they “leapfrog past the mistakes of the developed world”? The developed world has an obligation to lead the way and to help other nations follow, Chu said. “It is not our birthright to say that we should enjoy a high standard of living and the developing countries should not.”

Doesn't sound too difficult.

 

[Astronuc]

Former EPA Chief Whitman on Nuclear Power, Energy Jobs, and the New EPA
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/24/former-epa-chief-whitman-on-nuclear-power-energy-jobs-and-the-new-epa/

WSJ: Nuclear power seems to be gathering momentum—now Italy’s trying to jump on board. Does that change the debate here?

WHITMAN: The nuclear revival is happening all across Europe. A lot of the countries who’ve signed onto Kyoto, find they can’t meet their emissions budgets. The biggest difference is that for the first time, environmentalists are willing to engage. Climate change is such an important deal, we’ve gotten boxed in—what form of base power can meet our needs?
If electricity demand is going to grow 20% by 2030, and you’re not going to get there with energy efficiency and renewables alone, if you care about climate change, you have to look at nuclear power as part of the solution.

WSJ: But one of the big question marks is the ability of the nuclear industry to really gear up, with concerns over supplies of key components and even technicians.

WHITMAN: There probably won’t be too many problems from a personnel point of view, because there is more and more technical training going on, and there’s always the U.S. Navy.

In terms of components, there are more issues, like forging the reactor core vessel. Eventually, that is going to be a problem. But that is something that we could do in the U.S., and it would bring back manufacturing jobs.

WSJ: Green jobs are all the rage, especially after the stimulus bill. In the past, CASE has touted the job-creation potential of the nuclear industry, but how realistic is that given the sector’s upstream challenges?

WHITMAN: Look, peak employment during the construction of a nuclear reactor can reach 4,000 jobs. Once built, you’re looking at 400-700 full-time jobs. Now, if all the 26 reactors in the pipeline were built in the US, you’d be talking about 12,000 to 21,000 jobs.
Things are speeding up. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has streamlined the permitting process, so the timeline [for a new nuclear plant] is more like 8-10 years, rather than 15 years as in the past. And that’s only going to get faster—we’re talking about 4 technologies for new reactors instead of the 95 or so for the current 104 reactors.
And that will help the economics—you’ll finally see economies of scale. That will be better on the jobs side, too, because people can move around from one reactor to another. In the past, they always had to retrain. Standardization will bring a lot of benefits.

WSJ: But there’s still the question of nuclear-waste storage, and the decades-long debate over Yucca Mountain.

WHITMAN: The storage question is not a nuclear science issue, it’s a political science issue. It’s all [Senate majority leader] Harry Reid. The spent fuel rods are safely stored for now.
Now, France and Japan are reprocessing their spent fuel, bringing that waste from 95% useable fuel down to about 3%. If we get that going, then that will reduce the amount of waste to be stored, and Yucca will be in fine shape.

. . . .

 

[brewnog]

Its not about cost for every acre you cover, its cost per kw generated. I came across an article not to long ago that compared the cradle to grave costs of solar cells, solar thermal, and a couple biofuel energy sources. I'll try and find it again.

Ever find that article, Topher?

 

[mheslep]

Former EPA Chief Whitman on Nuclear Power, Energy Jobs, and the New EPA
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/24/former-epa-chief-whitman-on-nuclear-power-energy-jobs-and-the-new-epa/

Note that the President omitted all reference to nuclear power in yesterday's speech, despite some lengthy energy passages and 15 references to 'energy', with the exception of a single reference to 'terrorism and nuclear proliferation'. That's a disappointing lack of balance, and I'm afraid represents a denial of the facts on the ground that this and other threads have explored in seeking a secure energy future.

 

[mheslep]

WHITMAN: Look, peak employment during the construction of a nuclear reactor can reach 4,000 jobs. Once built, you’re looking at 400-700 full-time jobs. Now, if all the 26 reactors in the pipeline were built in the US, you’d be talking about 12,000 to 21,000 jobs.

The jobs argument strikes me as a poor one. In down economies its increasingly thrown around to justify most anything, almost replacing 'it will help the children' for top rationalization. I expect a 1 GW power source of any type is going create some thousands of jobs. To the extent nuclear requires more people than other sources it reflects the cost premium inherent in nuclear. That is, the jobs might be for say 20 security people that don't produce anything, and throw in some jobs created for lawyers and professional anti-nuclear activists. I think the better argument is that to the extent nuclear creates jobs they are more highly skilled, good jobs.

 

[russ_watters]

Ug, that's a fairly poor Reuters article. 'Tower of mirrors'? Nothing on cost, nothing on transmission issues, though that may simply not be available yet.

A quick look at the company website shows that there are no details because there are no details.

Utility companies need to spend money on such things (not sure if this one was spending required money or just a way to cash in on a tax incentive) and investing in start-ups with nonexistent products is an easy way to accomplish that.

The idea of solar-thermodynamic plants is not new and does hold some promise, but it isn't past the prototype stage, so advertising that they will have a large, functioning plant in 2 years is just silly.

 

[russ_watters]

Note that the President omitted all reference to nuclear power in yesterday's speech, despite some lengthy energy passages and 15 references to 'energy', with the exception of a single reference to 'terrorism and nuclear proliferation'. That's a disappointing lack of balance, and I'm afraid represents a denial of the facts on the ground that this and other threads have explored in seeking a secure energy future.

Some people knew that his tiptoing around the nuclear issue during the campaign was just for show. There won't be any progress on nuclear power regulations unless it is forced on him and since we have a Democrat Congress, that's not going to happen. I am so unsurprised, I wouldn't consider "dissapointment" a relevant reaction.

We're not going to be making any relevant progress on this issue any time soon.

 

[russ_watters]

The jobs argument strikes me as a poor one. In down economies its increasingly thrown around to justify most anything, almost replacing 'it will help the children' for top rationalization. I expect a 1 GW power source of any type is going create some thousands of jobs. To the extent nuclear requires more people than other sources it reflects the cost premium inherent in nuclear. That is, the jobs might be for say 20 security people that don't produce anything, and throw in some jobs created for lawyers and professional anti-nuclear activists. I think the better argument is that to the extent nuclear creates jobs they are more highly skilled, good jobs.

Agreed. When the government spends money on just about anything, it creates jobs, at least temporarily. There are plenty of good/relevant reasons to support nuclear power, but that really isn't one of them.

 

[mheslep]

Some people knew that his tiptoing around the nuclear issue during the campaign was just for show. There won't be any progress on nuclear power regulations unless it is forced on him and since we have a Democrat Congress, that's not going to happen. I am so unsurprised, I wouldn't consider "dissapointment" a relevant reaction.

We're not going to be making any relevant progress on this issue any time soon.

I had thought Obama was smart enough to know that even best case w/ alternatives he would need some nuclear, at the very least to get busy w/ replacing aging existing US plants, and that the tiptoing was in part plotting a political course, and maybe looking for some better 'reach' technology (i.e. gen4) that would help w/ proliferation, cost, etc. The present course, to include no more drilling and the http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/8375101.xml?src=Nuclearrssheadlines1" , is just stupid.

From the budget today released by the White House:

The yucca Mountain program will be scaled back to those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear regulatory Commission, while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/budgetblueprint02262009.pdf

 

[aerospaceut10]

Some people knew that his tiptoing around the nuclear issue during the campaign was just for show. There won't be any progress on nuclear power regulations unless it is forced on him and since we have a Democrat Congress, that's not going to happen. I am so unsurprised, I wouldn't consider "dissapointment" a relevant reaction.

We're not going to be making any relevant progress on this issue any time soon.

Well, I have been disappointed ever since probably his run against McCain since during his Democratic primaries he was actually among the biggest proponents of nuclear power.

 

[mheslep]

Well, I have been disappointed ever since probably his run against McCain since during his Democratic primaries he was actually among the biggest proponents of nuclear power.

Russ's 'tiptoeing' description is more accurate than 'proponent':

At a debate in January 2008, Obama said he would support more nuclear power if it could be made cost-efficient and safe, and the waste stored effectively. He noted, if that can be done, "then we should pursue it because what we don't want is to produce more greenhouse gases."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14755/

 

[russ_watters]

To be a little more complete, he took some flak for being against nuclear power so he created that position (in the quote) as a response to it. It's a pointless position because compromise is an inherrent part of putting together policy and he's simply acknowledging the potential need to compromise on the issue...but that doesn't at all imply his actual position changed.

So far he has not made any moves to block nuclear power, and I hope, at least, that that will continue. Nuclear power could use help, but it is starting to come back on its own.

 

[mheslep]

...So far he has not made any moves to block nuclear power, and I hope, at least, that that will continue. Nuclear power could use help, but it is starting to come back on its own.

There I disagree, I think nuclear is dead in the US under the current policy, unfortunately. Nuclear is expensive but it had some hope with a government that agreed to a) help out with waste policy and b) at least do no harm with baseless law suits and delaying actions. Without that much help, nobody is ever going to float billion dollar bonds for a nuclear plant.

Edit: the most direct way to remedy this policy error IMO is to force energy secretary Chu to discuss the matter. Unlike a purely political appointee, with his background he should not be allowed to delay and obfuscate on the subject by deferring to the experts.

 

[.:Endeavour:.]

There I disagree, I think nuclear is dead in the US under the current policy, unfortunately. Nuclear is expensive but it had some hope with a government that agreed to a) help out with waste policy and b) at least do no harm with baseless law suits and delaying actions. Without that much help, nobody is ever going to float billion dollar bonds for a nuclear plant.

Edit: the most direct way to remedy this policy error IMO is to force energy secretary Chu to discuss the matter. Unlike a purely political appointee, with his background he should not be allowed to delay and obfuscate on the subject by deferring to the experts.

For nuclear power plants, most of them where made in the late 20^th century. Instead of making new plants, most existing plants should be up-dated to the 21^th century. Obama isn't the one that makes the public policy to the nation, but only Congress with an exception of the executive order w. Most of the policy about energy comes from Congress and not from the President. The way that the President influences policy is by the OMB, State of the Union Address, his approval rating, vetoing legislation, signing statements, and some others. Congress spends more than half on entitlement and the rest on discretion and funded programs. One way that you can change this is by writing to your representative of Congress which are the ones that makes the policy that affects our lives.

The other form of nuclear energy will be from fusion until it becomes available to us to use. It isn't the government agreeing on nuclear power is the interest groups that lobby Congress for it and against it, so Congress has to compromise somewhere with both groups.