Should nuclear energy be phased out? [Archive]

motai

Jan29-06, 01:50 PM

I definitely think nuclear energy should be phased out because it can't be anything but a temporary solution. Why go the temporary route when it's going to be such a huge investment of resources (both intellectual and financial) and has a definite shelf-life when one can be investing in a variety of sustainable long-term solutions instead?

Once the investment is made, the cost of production of energy will pay itself off over time. Looking at any power company's daily usage, the nuclear plants are running as long as possible (it would be unproductive not to), and they would only use coal/gas during peak hours. Once the plant is finally paid off, the cost of energy per kilowatthour of nuclear energy is lower than say coal or natural gas.

In 1999, production costs (outlays for fuel and operations and maintenance) at nuclear power plants averaged 1.83 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh), lower than coal at 2.07 cents/kwh and still far lower than oil-fired plants at 3.18 cents/kwh and natural gas plants at 3.52 cents/kwh.

...

The 103 reactors operating in 31 states produced 571.2 billion kilowatt-hours through September 2000, compared to 543.5 billion kwh through September 1999, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. For the full year, the nuclear energy industry in 1999 generated an all-time high of 728 billion kwh, providing 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs. Industry estimates show an expected four percent increase over that record production level for 2000.

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=304

Nuclear energy is a long term solution, and while the supply of uranium is a finite resource (breeder reactors can help alleviate this), it is certainly more of an alternative to the predominantly natural gas based infrastructure that we have now.

Currently ~20% of US energy comes from nuclear plants. If we were to phase out this form of energy, we would have to burn more coal and oil to offset the difference (extrapolating from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/10atab.html the roughly 800 billion KWH needed that nuclear power already provides). That and energy demand will most likely grow in the future.

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 02:01 PM

I definitely think nuclear energy should be phased out because it can't be anything but a temporary solution. What do you mean by "temporary"? How many years do you think we can go before running out of nuclear fuel?

I voted "no" because of nuclear power's track record and cost: it is safe, clean, inexpensive (relative to "alternative" energy sources), and plentiful.

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 02:06 PM

Lest anyone think it is impossible to phase out nuclear energy, keep in mind that Denmark has already done it. The Danes legally banned the construction of new nuclear power plants 1988, and their country seems to be getting along mostly OK. Of course it is possible, but your original question is whether or not we should.

Denmark currently gets 19% of its power from wind and all the rest from fossil fuel. Do you really consider that to be a good tradeoff?

http://www.cslforum.org/denmark.htm

Art

Jan29-06, 02:10 PM

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 02:15 PM

What do you mean by "temporary"? How many years do you think we can go before running out of nuclear fuel?

There was a NOAA program a while back, its not that much. It said something to the effect that if we used all the nuclear power plants around the world, it would only last ~70? years. It would run out quite fast.

As for coal, its not enough to last hundreds of years, at most, ONE hundred years.

SOS2008

Jan29-06, 02:19 PM

Yes in the grand scheme of things. As alexandra pointed out the benefits are temporary and the drawbacks are practically permanent so it's a bad tradeoff. But not today, not just yet. Such a transition is a painful one. And Azael still needs a job. I think we should first learn not to make so many babies that need to be kept warm and strive for a stable population. When you don't need to account for uncontrollable human growth, all resources become much easier to manage, electrical power included. I will now go hide in my cave to avoid tomatoes thrown by all the economists out there (who also need to grow them in exponential numbers to quell the growing number of heretic idealists like me).I brought up the matter of population control before as well. It definitely should be a part of any future planning of anything. Thanks to conservative movements, we have to do battle over something as basic as allowing distribution of condoms before we can even get around to the discussion of energy sources.

In regard to energy sources, I feel many things have been and continue to be neglected, such as providing government incentives for automakers, home builders, and of course corporations of every kind. There are already many things that could be implemented for better energy efficiency, but it’s not being done. The government must be behind it. And as I’ve said before, here in the U.S. we should have had a NASA style program for alternative energy years ago. Why are we still waiting? Go to the thread about Censorship at NASA, NOAA, etc. and see what our government has been about. What are the American people about? They are either apathetic or obsessed with distribution of condoms.

So what do we do now? Unfortunately we find ourselves in a position of little choice. We will have to go on using what ever is realistically at our disposal—though some may be the lesser of evils, such as the clean coal Art suggested.

In another forum the topic of methane arose. It is becoming a great energy source in China, and I recently saw a program about a recycling plant here in the U.S. that is powered with methane from the nearby landfill. This would also help reduce a greenhouse gas, no? I say we should all install stoves with pipes to the sewer.

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 02:28 PM

In regard to energy sources, I feel many things have been and continue to be neglected, such as providing government incentives for automakers, home builders, and of course corporations of every kind.

Yes and no. While its true that the American auto makers clearly don’t give a damn about fuel consumption, look at all the SUV's people drive, (and don’t get me started on that I cant stand SUV drivers), allot of factories these days are much more environmentally friendly. i.e., paper mills and logging companies will use the saw dust and burn it to power the machines in the factory, instead of just throwing it away. *Some* factories have gotten allot better in this sense, although some have not. (But overall compared to 1970 it is alot better)

Things like wind power, solar energy, cleaner coals, are all great, and should be built and used. But an informed person would know that these will in no way, I repeat, no way replace nuclear or fossil fuels. We can do allot to alleviate the usage of resources, as we are the most wasteful nation on the planet. Not wasteful in the effect of careless, but wasteful in terms of everything we make is disposable. We don’t build anything to last anymore. This is why we waste so much. Everything is one time use, and comes in excessive packaging that wastes allot of material.

SOS2008

Jan29-06, 02:43 PM

...a llot of factories these days are much more environmentally friendly. i.e., paper mills and logging companies will use the saw dust and burn it to power the machines in the factory, instead of just throwing it away. *Some* factories have gotten allot better in this sense, although some have not. (But overall compared to 1970 it is alot better)

Things like wind power, solar energy, cleaner coals, are all great, and should be built and used. But an informed person would know that these will in no way, I repeat, no way replace nuclear or fossil fuels. We can do allot to alleviate the usage of resources, as we are the most wasteful nation on the planet. Not wasteful in the effect of careless, but wasteful in terms of everything we make is disposable. We don’t build anything to last anymore. This is why we waste so much. Everything is one time use, and comes in excessive packaging that wastes allot of material.I'm not talking about pollutants; I'm talking about energy use and efficiency. And as I said, because of our neglect, we now have no choice but to use energy sources at our disposal (which unfortunately includes nuclear). I completely agree about wastefulness, and packaging gets back to corporations, not just individuals.

Art

Jan29-06, 02:45 PM

There was a NOAA program a while back, its not that much. It said something to the effect that if we used all the nuclear power plants around the world, it would only last ~70? years. It would run out quite fast.

As for coal, its not enough to last hundreds of years, at most, ONE hundred years.According to this article there's enough coal left to last 300 years. By that time I imagine we will have developed completely new energy sources. http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal1.asp Also some rough studies done in the 90s found there were already sufficient known geological areas identified, suitable for storing 50,000 billion tonnes of CO2 - more than will be produced in the next several hundred years.

The waste CO2 is also already being used in Canada and other places to extend the life of otherwise dead oilfields by pumping it down under pressure to force more oil out.

So although coal is a fossil fuel and fossil fuels have a bad name it seems it doesn't have to be that way. Coal burning power plants can have zero harmful emmisions, as demonstrated by some of the proto type plants already built.

Azael

Jan29-06, 02:48 PM

I brought up the matter of population control before as well. It definitely should be a part of any future planning of anything. Thanks to conservative movements, we have to do battle over something as basic as allowing distribution of condoms before we can even get around to the discussion of energy sources.

Trying to controll the population of the rich countries would be totaly wasted effort since many of those countries already have aging and diminishing populations. Only imigration keeps the numbers up.

In china, india, middle east population controll would help to prevent a explosion in power usage. But in the western world I se no need for it at all, it would probably hurt our societs alot to try and keep population growth down.

Goverments need to step in and restrict energy consumption if anything is to be done.
But if the people have a chooise betwen giving up some quality of life or wanting more nuclear power plants no one would vote no to nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldnt.

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 02:50 PM

Well, nuclear power was not out of our neglect. It really was thought at one point that ALL our power would be nuclear, and we would use NO fossil fuels.

With the industrial revolution, we really never had any choice on our use for fossil fuels for the last 200 years. Japan is a country to take notice at. They have more than doubled in terms of technology in the last 30 years, but reamain nearly the same in total energy consumption. We, however, have doubled in energy use for the same amount of technological change.

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 02:56 PM

Trying to controll the population of the rich countries would be totaly wasted effort since many of those countries already have aging and diminishing populations. Only imigration keeps the numbers up.

In china, india, middle east population controll would help to prevent a explosion in power usage. But in the western world I se no need for it at all, it would probably hurt our societs alot to try and keep population growth down.

Yes, that is very true, as the US wont have a significant population as to China or India. Population control in those countries will have greater effect. Population rates in already industrialized countries are, as you said, on the decline. However, that does not change the fact that the US uses more power than most other nations COMBINED, despite our low population. We need to diversify our power consumption, and use renewable energy sources in as many areas as possible.

Azael

Jan29-06, 03:01 PM

Yes, that is very true, as the US wont have a significant population as to China or India. Population control in those countries will have greater effect. Population rates in already industrialized countries are, as you said, on the decline. However, that does not change the fact that the US uses more power than most other nations COMBINED, despite our low population. We need to diversify our power consumption, and use renewable energy sources in as many areas as possible.

yes I totaly agree that americans needs to stop beeing wastefull. Or well the same goes for all rich countries but not to the same extent.

But seriously. All the money put on alternative energy would probably yieald 10 times as much energy if invested in nuclear power?? This is just a guess from my side though since I have no figures to go on. But nuclear power is a reliable, tested and clean power source. We know how to build and manage them. Renewables on the other hand are not reliable as of yet. I would hate to se countries put all eggs in the renewable basket.

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 03:09 PM

You would get more energy from nuclear power plants if that money went to nuclear and not alternative. The problem is there is not alot of nuclear material to go crazy and built one reactor after another. There is only a couple decades of nuclear power available. The problem with nuclear power is the waste that will stay around for 2000 years, and no place to put it. Even china is big on using wind power. The dutch have used wind power for about 100 years now. It is quit reliable, just not as effecient for all areas.

Azael

Jan29-06, 03:11 PM

Isnt there huge ammounts of uranium that can be extracted from sea water??

http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/ff/ff43/topics.html

How acurate is this claim from this page
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
How much uranium is there in seawater?
Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium. All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.

http://www.ans.org/pubs/journals/nt/va-144-2-274-278

Orefa

Jan29-06, 03:38 PM

The problem with nuclear power is the waste that will stay around for 2000 years, and no place to put it.
And isn't this highly optimistic? The numbers I saw were billions, not thousands. As in a billion pounds of depleted uranium with a half life of four billion years. While I'm not sure of these particular figures I have a good hunch that thinking in terms of just a few thousand years trivializes the extent of the problem.

Azael

Jan29-06, 03:41 PM

And isn't this highly optimistic? The numbers I saw were billions, not thousands. As in a billion pounds of depleted uranium with a half life of four billion years. While I'm not sure of these particular figures I have a good hunch that thinking in terms of just a few thousand years trivializes the extent of the problem.

Anything with a half life of four billion years cant be especialy dangerous:confused: Such a low decay rate must mean very very tiny radiation?

Orefa

Jan29-06, 03:46 PM

Anything with a half life of four billion years cant be especialy dangerous:confused: Such a low decay rate must mean very very tiny radiation?
Good point. The waste is not pure uranium though but a mixture of various metals with various half-lives and I don't know for how long this mixture remains dangerous. Still, there is just so much of it!

Orefa

Jan29-06, 03:48 PM

Question: isn't it possible to return to sender? Radioactive elements are mined, right? Can the process not be reversed to return spent materials exactly where they came from in the first place?

As for sea water as a source of uranium, if there is so much in the ocean already, can it be used and then returned depleted? Surely this was considered and rejected for many good reasons.

Azael

Jan29-06, 03:51 PM

well the uranium you dig up isnt very radioactive. The waste is. So you cant just put it back there, it could leak into water supplies.

Maby transmutation will be the solution in the close future, someone here must know how rapdily that is developing.

Orefa

Jan29-06, 04:11 PM

well the uranium you dig up isnt very radioactive. The waste is.
So the uranium is refined before use, which brings up another question. Since you need radioactivity to fuel a reactor, why discard radioactive waste instead of refining it again and re-using it? Wrong wavelength? Not technically feasible for other reasons?

I'm showing my ignorance. :blushing:

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 04:16 PM

Arg, then why are you even debating this topic.

So the uranium is refined before use, which brings up another question. Since you need radioactivity to fuel a reactor, why discard radioactive waste instead of refining it again and re-using it?

Huh? You dont NEED radioactivity to fuel a reactor, it is a byproduct.

Wrong wavelength? Not technically feasible for other reasons?

Huh?......

Please spend some time reading about what your debating.

Azael

Jan29-06, 04:18 PM

So the uranium is refined before use, which brings up another question. Since you need radioactivity to fuel a reactor, why discard radioactive waste instead of refining it again and re-using it? Wrong wavelength? Not technically feasible for other reasons?

I'm showing my ignorance. :blushing:

The fuel in nuclear power plants are not highely radioactive. I think you could use the regular fuel rod material as a bookend without any harm. The only requirement is that it can easily absorb a neutron so it becomes unstable and split.

Im going to have to pass on this because my knoweledge of nuclear physics is very VERY shallow.

But Im fairly certain that is how a breeder reactor works. It produces more fissile matter from the matter you put into it. So the original fuel is used 50 times as efficiently as in other types of reactors.

Orefa

Jan29-06, 04:46 PM

Arg, then why are you even debating this topic.
[...]
Please spend some time reading about what your debating.
Your criticism is not really fair since this debate is not about how nuclear reactors work but on their impact. I freely admit my ignorance of what's actually going on inside the blasted things. This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor.

Azael

Jan29-06, 04:49 PM

Your criticism is not really fair since this debate is not about how nuclear reactors work but on their impact. I freely admit my ignorance of what's actually going on inside the blasted things. This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor.

Remember that even if nuclear waste has to be handled for thousands of years its still not as bad as dangerous chemical waste that has to be handled indefenetly.

The dangers of nuclear power and nuclear waste seems WAY overblown to me. Why not just store the waste temporarly until we find a permanent solution. In a 100 years we will certanly know how to get rid of it. So why worry about 100 000 year storage areas now:confused:

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 05:22 PM

Your criticism is not really fair since this debate is not about how nuclear reactors work but on their impact. I freely admit my ignorance of what's actually going on inside the blasted things. This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor.

Yes, if you dont know how they even work, I dont think you know about their impact. Do you think that smoke that comes out of the reactor cooling towers are pollution? My case in point. And you said billiions of years, which is wrong. Just read about in in wiki or somewhere, it will only take you a whole 30 mins at most.

WarrenPlatts

Jan29-06, 05:33 PM

The dangers of nuclear power and nuclear waste seems WAY overblown to me. Why not just store the waste temporarly until we find a permanent solution. In a 100 years we will certanly know how to get rid of it. So why worry about 100 000 year storage areas now.
There's a question of intergenerational ethics here. Is it really fair to ask our great-great grandchildren to deal with a mess that we created? By then, nuclear might seem as old-fashioned as paddle-wheeled steamships seem to us. Alternatively, if our best minds can't figure out a solution now, why think that they will be able to in 100 years? In another alternate future, something superbad could happen, like world war or a mass pandemic worse than the black plague, in which case, they may not have the economic wherewithal to deal with our waste.

The problem is building something that's going to last longer than the Egyptian pyramids, and more impervious to burglers. And where is the money going to come from? Are we setting aside a trust fund now to be used in 100 years to store nuclear waste using a method we hope they figure out because we're too stupid? If so, I haven't heard about it.

Azael

Jan29-06, 05:41 PM

There's a question of intergenerational ethics here. Is it really fair to ask our great-great grandchildren to deal with a mess that we created? By then, nuclear might seem as old-fashioned as paddle-wheeled steamships seem to us. Alternatively, if our best minds can't figure out a solution now, why think that they will be able to in 100 years? In another alternate future, something superbad could happen, like world war or a mass pandemic worse than the black plague, in which case, they may not have the economic wherewithal to deal with our waste.

The problem is building something that's going to last longer than the Egyptian pyramids, and more impervious to burglers. And where is the money going to come from? Are we setting aside a trust fund now to be used in 100 years to store nuclear waste using a method we hope they figure out because we're too stupid? If so, I haven't heard about it.

as far as I can tell(Im not keeping updated on this) transmutation is very promising. Also new reactors that can run on the waste of other reactors and the waste of those reactors not beeing that long lived ect. There seems to be plenty of possible ways to get around the waste issue. hell if something like the esa phoenix(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Phoenix) gets working why not just put aside some of the power produces to shot it right into space. Or burry it **** deep underground or somewhere in the ocean where it can slowely disipate into ocean water.

Il let someone like Russ that knows for sure what hes talking about answere how to deal with waste.

But as to the question why they would be able in a 100 years but not today. Il just say how much hasnt happened during the last 100 years??

Azael

Jan29-06, 05:44 PM

The most important question is what are you suggesting as a alternative to nuclear power to replace fossile fuel? Regular wind power surely cant fill the worlds energy needs. Solar power would need immense surfaces and would need to go down in price tenfold, hydropower puts huge areas underwater. Tidal power maby I dont know how good it is, but even that must have huge drawbacks on sea life.

Sounds alot better to build now what is known to be safe and works good and start building alternatives when they become competitive.

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 05:49 PM

Also new reactors that can run on the waste of other reactors and the waste of those reactors not beeing that long lived ect.

The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff.

gets working why not just put aside some of the power produces to shot it right into space.

Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft, you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth.

Or burry it **** deep underground or somewhere in the ocean where it can slowely disipate into ocean water.

Because, again, it seeps into the waters all around the world, and kills everything that consumes it. Like getting into the water table.

Azael

Jan29-06, 06:21 PM

The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff.

What are the waste from them? I had the picture that the waste that cant be reused is mostly of short half life, so while very dangerous it doesnt have to be stored for such a long time.

Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft, you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth. Sounds alot better to build now what is known to be safe and works good and start building alternatives when they become competitive.

Killing everyone on earth sounds very dramatic. It would probably be spread around so much that no one would notice one accident. I only mentioned it as a far fetched idea if they get something like the phoenix prototype to work.

Because, again, it seeps into the waters all around the world, and kills everything that consumes it. Like getting into the water table.

Either Im totaly ignorant or your seriously overestimating the dangers of radioactive waste.

What about this

http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/sea-based.htm

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 06:23 PM

to be polite, I am not overestimating the dangers. Plutonium, for example, will sit there for about 25 thousand years. Thats the crap that comes out of breeder reactors.

Azael

Jan29-06, 06:32 PM

Well that only means the other option is true lol :-)

Anyway Il withdraw from this discussion now since I have nothing more of value to add besides speculation.

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 06:35 PM

It would not immediately kill everyone. But it would cause major reproductive problems and cancer that would eventually kill us all in a very unpleasant and painful way.

Orefa

Jan29-06, 08:11 PM

Yes, if you dont know how they even work, I dont think you know about their impact.
Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion.

Do you think that smoke that comes out of the reactor cooling towers are pollution? My case in point.
No. And this thread was never based on this. You don't really have a "case in point".

And you said billiions of years, which is wrong.
And you mentionned 2000 years which is just as wrong. But on your part you did no't say half life so it's ok, and on my part I said I wasn't sure of my figures, so this is moot in both our cases.

chroot

Jan29-06, 08:19 PM

My previous comments on the vastly overrated dangers of long half-life radioactive materials:

from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=99215

I think you'll eventually learn the following: the Earth is an absolutely immensely large place. If you take a pound of plutonium-239 and distribute it evenly over the entire planet -- which is apparently your conception of the worst case -- each square meter receives 5.56470179 × 10^-22 kg of plutonium, or about 1400 atoms of plutonium.

1400 atoms of plutonium has a specific activity of 3.40828 x 10^-20 curies, or about 1.2610636 x 10^-09 decays per second. That's right, that's about one decay in 25 years.

You could go further and calculate the chances of those decay products actually hitting people -- most of them will go right into the earth or right up into the atmosphere. Only a very very few will be emitted at the correct angle to strike a person. I could calculate this factor, but what's the point?

I'll let you extrapolate the figures for 100 pounds, or 10,000 pounds of plutonium released. Observe the trend:

It's utterly insignificant.

from http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=99149

By the way, your continued alarmism re: long half-life radioisotopes begs the comment:

Nearly all heavy metals have a biological half-life of less than six months. This means the half-life of the radioisotope is not a big deal, assuming that the people in the contaminated area are moved elsewhere so their consumption of the material stops.

Let's take an example: Cs-137, one of the most dangerous radioisotopes due to its chemical similarity to potassium.

1) The biological half-life of Cs-137 is about 115 days. (Source: CDC, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prussianblue.asp)

2) The radiological half-life of Cs-137 is 30.17 years. (Source: DOE)

3) The specific activity of Cs-137 is 86.4 curies/g, or 3.2 x 1012 beta decays per second per gram. (Source: DOE)

Let's say a very unlucky person ingests an entire milligram of pure Cs-137. How many decays will his body experience in the time period until the concentration of Cs-137 is his body is 1% of the original dose?

This takes 6.64 biological half-lives, or about two years.

After two years, about 95% of the Cs-137 is still active.

The total dose received by the subject is 1.42429 x 1012 decays over those two years.

If the radiological half-life for Cs-137 were instead 10,000 years, 330 times longer, the total dose would be 1.43842 x 1012 decays, or just about 1% more decays.

Long half-life radioactive materials are actually less dangerous than short half-life radioactive materials. Virtually no one seems to really understand this basic fact.

- Warren

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 08:20 PM

Why not develop 'clean coal' power plants. The US and most other industrialised nations have massive amounts of coal available to them. Enough to last hundreds of years.

The cost of a clean coal power plant is around 25% dearer than a conventional one and the additional cost for sequestering the 750 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted each year is estimated to be around $31 million p/a.

This sounds a lot cheaper and safer than adding new nuclear power plants especially as 50% of the US electricity supply is already being produced in coal fired power plants and so the infrastructure is already in place. "Clean coal" is a good idea (existing plants should be retrofitted immediately), but it must be remembered that it isn't completely clean, just cleaner. There was a NOAA program a while back, its not that much. It said something to the effect that if we used all the nuclear power plants around the world, it would only last ~70? years. It would run out quite fast. I suspect that the program assumes that we'd continue using existing obsolete designs, wouldn't use reprocessing, and economics would not make other extraction methods economical. Take away those unrealistic (wrong) assumptions, and the numbers get a lot better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Fuel_resources Isnt there huge ammounts of uranium that can be extracted from sea water??

How acurate is this claim from this page? The basic problem is that we don't know if it'll work (by that I mean the economics in addition to the engineering) until we do it. But that just puts us in the same place as the typical alternative energy sources. The problem with nuclear power is the waste that will stay around for 2000 years, and no place to put it. And isn't this highly optimistic? The numbers I saw were billions, not thousands. As in a billion pounds of depleted uranium with a half life of four billion years. While I'm not sure of these particular figures I have a good hunch that thinking in terms of just a few thousand years trivializes the extent of the problem. Well, IIRC, the design criteria for the "permanent" waste site is 100,000 years. But the thing about depleted uranium is that it's depleted. It is less radioactive than the day it was dug out of the ground - that's why it has such a long half-life. In any case, we'll go into that more later.... As for sea water as a source of uranium, if there is so much in the ocean already, can it be used and then returned depleted? Surely this was considered and rejected for many good reasons. Well, if you could pump the entire ocean through it to dilute it before returning it to the ocean, sure.... Otherwise you will end up concentrating it somewhere. So the uranium is refined before use, which brings up another question. Since you need radioactivity to fuel a reactor, why discard radioactive waste instead of refining it again and re-using it? Wrong wavelength? Not technically feasible for other reasons? The waste can be reprocessed - it isn't reprocessed in the US for political reasons. But economics has a way of taking care of that sort of thing... I'm showing my ignorance. Not a problem: you are asking questions and showing a definite desire to learn. You dont NEED radioactivity to fuel a reactor, it is a byproduct. Um - if it isn't radioactive before going into the reactor, how does it undergo fission? :uhh:

No, nuclear fuel is dug out of the ground slightly radioactive, is enriched until it is somewhat more radioactive, and after it is used, it has different mixtures of radioactive elements. But both the DU waste from the ore and the waste from the reactor can be re-processed to get more use out of it.

On this subject, there is plenty of ignorance to go around. This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor. Well, there is considerable debate about that. In my personal opinion, the 100,000 year design criteria is absurd. The spent fuel has bee sitting in local storage for quite some time, safe, secure, and not hurting anyone. In 50 years, do you know what will have happened? Nothing. It'll still be sitting there safe, secure, and not hurting anyone. So why the requirement for 100,000 years? Nevermind the virtual impossibility of that design criteria (which is why so much money has been spent on the permanent storage idea with virtually nothing to show for it), why do we really need it? There's a question of intergenerational ethics here. Is it really fair to ask our great-great grandchildren to deal with a mess that we created? Ironic thing to say, considering the whole global-warming mess that we aren't really dealing with (to say nothing for problem such as the national debt...)... Frankly, I think a few dozen gymnasium-sized storage sits is not a bad thing to pass down if it means eliminating fossil fuel pollution. By then, nuclear might seem as old-fashioned as paddle-wheeled steamships seem to us. Alternatively, if our best minds can't figure out a solution now, why think that they will be able to in 100 years? That's self-contradictory. In the first part you said that we're so smart we won't need nuclear power in the future and in the second that we're not smart enough to use nuclear power effectively. That also highlights the problem with making predictions about 100,000 year storage. What if we find another way in 50 years? Maybe we will and maybe we won't. Regardless of if either is correct, what we do know for sure right now is that our spent fuel is safe right now and global CO2 levels are rising right now. In 50 years (about as far in advance as we can really plan), we can end up with a waste disposal situation pretty much the same as we have now and no greenhouse gas problem. Seems good to me. In another alternate future, something superbad could happen, like world war or a mass pandemic worse than the black plague, in which case, they may not have the economic wherewithal to deal with our waste. Certainly - but if a pandemic kills off so many people that society collapses and we can't deal with our waste.... are we going to care about our waste? The problem is building something that's going to last longer than the Egyptian pyramids, and more impervious to burglers. And where is the money going to come from? Are we setting aside a trust fund now to be used in 100 years to store nuclear waste using a method we hope they figure out because we're too stupid? If so, I haven't heard about it. Huh? I wouldn't recommend it, but the storage facility being planned likely will be built. With today's money. And since it will be required to be secure and not require maintenance, future money is not required. as far as I can tell(Im not keeping updated on this) transmutation is very promising. I don't know about transmutation per se (maybe...), but there are certainly reprocessing options. The most important question is what are you suggesting as a alternative to nuclear power to replace fossile fuel? Yes, the question requires an evaluation of the alternatives. Like I said, we can, of course, phase out nuclear power if we want to. Heck, the environmentalists were successful in getting nuclear power plant construction stopped after TMI - perhaps they will succeed in getting it phased-out (if we don't build any new plants, the old ones will need to be shut down eventually anyway). But at what cost? We've vastly increased fossil fuel energy production, and as a result, air pollution. The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff. Sure, but so what? Whether it's medium-nasty or REALLY nasty, if it's in a concrete building and not hurting anyone, what's the problem? Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft, you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth. Shooting it into space probably isn't going to happen for other reasons, but nuclear fuel has already been shot into space and it's already crashed back to earth, and if properly designed, the fuel is not released. Anyway, "spray[ing] nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill[ing] everyone on earth" is just not something that would be possible - even if we just shot a bunch of 55 gallon drums up there. to be polite, I am not overestimating the dangers. To be polite, yeah, you are. For example: Plutonium, for example, will sit there for about 25 thousand years. Saying how long something will sit there doesn't say anything at all about how dangerous it is. Throwing big numbers of years around is just a scare tactic (in fact - it's an ironically inverted scare tactic since the longer the half-life, the less radioactive the material).

[some repetition of what Warren said, but I replied to posts in order. Besides, sometimes repetition helps]

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 08:22 PM

Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion. Agreed - Cryus, lay off Azael, and Azael, don't stop trying to learn just because someone talks down to you.

chroot

Jan29-06, 08:23 PM

Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion.
Actually, I have to side with cyrusabdollahi on this one (can you believe it?). You do need to be a surgeon to competently debate the merits of different surgical abortion techniques.

In this case, if you don't know the physics of how reactors work, or the physics of how their waste interacts with biological systems, you are essentially unequipped to participate competently in a debate about how such wastes should be dealt with, or what the dangers really are.

- Warren

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 08:26 PM

<Hugs Azael> Aw shucks, I love you guyz.

Edit: <Hugs chroot> I love you too, thanks for the information.

Thanks for the info too Russ.

I wouldn't trust those things to hold in the material that long that safe though. Things have a way of finding failure that you did not expect.

In this case, if you don't know the physics of how reactors work, or the physics of how their waste interacts with biological systems, you are essentially unequipped to participate competently in a debate about how such wastes should be dealt with, or what the dangers really are.

Apparently myself included now. You guys owned me :biggrin:

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 08:37 PM

More on this: Anyway, "spray[ing] nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill[ing] everyone on earth" is just not something that would be possible - even if we just shot a bunch of 55 gallon drums up there. The worst space-nuclear incident was Cosmos 954, which carried an actual reactor and was not designed to survive re-entry.

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/dangerous_reentries_000602.html On January 24, 1978, Cosmos 954 reentered over Canada, with debris hitting the ground in frozen and scarcely populated areas in Canadian Arctic. The U.S. team, which many now believe was associated with the CIA, arrived in Canada to assist in the search. The day after the crash, they started overflights of the area trying to detect the radiation from the spacecraft's remnants.

Before they picked up any indications, two people from a six-member group of adventurers returning to their camp found a crater with burned metal pieces in the ice. One of the unsuspecting men touched a strange object with his gloved hand. When a pair finally got to the camp ready to tell the rest of the group about their strange finding, they were told the news about the spacecraft crash. The authorities had already alerted the group by radio.

The group was warned not to approach within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of the debris. Fortunately, the piece handled by the man contained a negligible level of radiation. In the following days other pieces were found, scattered along frozen desert; one emitted 200 roentgens of radiation per hour -- the level which is enough kill a human after a two-hour exposure. A special container was hastily prepared to remove the object. For several months afterwards cleanup teams continued their efforts. Not pleasant, but the waste wasn't spread through the atmosphere and no one was hurt.

Surprising to most people, it isn't all that difficult to make a container that can survive reentry, and even if it doesn't, most of the waste would land and just make for a messy clean-up. Waste that would vaporize would do so high in the atmosphere (as opposed to Chernoby's, which was low) and would dissipate.

And more: http://www.nuclearspace.com/past_accidents.htm

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 08:41 PM

Actually, I have to side with cyrusabdollahi on this one (can you believe it?). You do need to be a surgeon to competently debate the merits of different surgical abortion techniques. Heh - that isn't all that the issue encompasses, though.

Anyway, I personally think that a good half the purpose of these debates is to educate.

edit: Oh, and since this issue ultimately will not be decided by experts, it is important that we endeavour to reduce the ignorance level of the people who will be making the decisions.

edit2: In addition, since the energy issue requires knowledge of pretty much every scientific, engineering, and social science discipline, if being an expert is required, there isn't a person on the planet capable of dealing with the issue.

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 08:42 PM

I wouldn't trust those things to hold in the material that long that safe though. Things have a way of finding failure that you did not expect. Agreed - which is why the 100,000 year design criteria for the storage facility is absurd. With 50 year plans, we can do pretty much all that we really are capable of doing for minimizing the risk.

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 08:43 PM

Well, im talking more along the lines of you are filling up space ship after space ship with drums of this stuff and shooting it off into space. You are bound to have an accident sooner or later. All it takes is for one of them to land in a major city and dump its contents into a water source. Thats one risk I would not be willing to take. (also, I dont think that space our new trash can)

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 08:59 PM

Well, im talking more along the lines of you are filling up space ship after space ship with drums of this stuff and shooting it off into space. Don't you think that's a little absurd? We're not quite that stupid that we wouldn't make an effort to make the containers secure. The containers for use in transporting waste to the storage facility are being tested by crashing freight trains into them and blowing them up! You are bound to have an accident sooner or later. Certainly true. All it takes is for one of them to land in a major city and dump its contents into a water source. Thats one risk I would not be willing to take. But how big of a risk is that really? 1 in a million? 1 in a billion? At some point, you have to decide if that risk is worth the trade-offs we are currently making: such as 20,000 people a year dying from air pollution in the US alone.

edit: caveat: launches have well-defined flight-plans. Even if the odds of a failure were, say, 1 in a 1000, there would be virtually no chance of the container finding its way to New York. They don't go in that direction. (also, I dont think that space our new trash can) Why not? It's a pretty big trash can...

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 09:07 PM

"We're not quite that stupid that we wouldn't make an effort to make the containers secure. The containers for use in transporting waste to the storage facility are being tested by crashing freight trains into them and blowing them up! "

Sure, but to shoot it off into space, you are not going to have such a heavy duty containment vessle. Or you will have so little waste for so much payload it just is not practical.

I think the risk of that stuff getting into a water system is huge. 1 major accident could affect millions and destroy ecosystems.

Space is not a trash can, sorry.

As for the nuclear waste in the atmosphere, tens of micrograms of inhaled plutonium can cause cancer. So I would not want the stuff in the atmosphere.

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 09:43 PM

Sure, but to shoot it off into space, you are not going to have such a heavy duty containment vessle. Or you will have so little waste for so much payload it just is not practical. I agree that the economics make it unlikely for the time being, but there is no technical reason why it isn't feasible(I did say that I didn't think it would happen in my long post - and that is the reason why). That's my main point. But any alternative is going to require some major costs.

And remember - we've already spent $6.4 billion on the Yucca mountains project with nothing to show for it (except, of course, that our nuclear waste has remained safe and secure for those 20 years). Regardless of what the solutions to all these problems are, the cost will almost certainly reach into the trillions. I think the risk of that stuff getting into a water system is huge. 1 major accident could affect millions and destroy ecosystems. That isn't risk. Risk is the effect of the event weighed against the likelihood of the event happening. You're making the same mistake that millions of lottery losers make by only considering the event and not weighing the actual risk. When was the last time you were in a plane? There is a risk of death with flying, you know.... How about when you drove in a car last?

Tell me what you think the likelihood of such an accident is and then we can evaluate the actual risk. We'll then compare it to other risks, such as a million deaths due to air pollution over 50 years (probability: 1:1). Space is not a trash can, sorry. Why not!?!? Just saying no is not an argument. As for the nuclear waste in the atmosphere, tens of micrograms of inhaled plutonium can cause cancer. So I would not want the stuff in the atmosphere. Take the quantity of plutonium we have and divide it by the volume of the atmosphere and you tell me if it would be possible to inhale 10 micrograms of it even if we dispersed all of our plutonium into the atmosphere....

Cyrus, yours is a far more dangerous type of ignorance than Azael - Azael is speculating, but trying to learn: you are assuming and avoiding learning.

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 09:59 PM

Take the quantity of plutonium we have and divide it by the volume of the atmosphere and you tell me if it would be possible to inhale 10 micrograms of it even if we dispersed all of our plutonium into the atmosphere....

Well, you are assuming that all that nuclear material goes all over the atmosphere. What if something happens just shortly after launch. That will spread out mostly over the launch pad/local area. Not over the entire atmosphere. So now you have a problem that is localized, in significant concentrations.

Why not!?!? Just saying no is not an argument.

Because I believe that we as a nation are horribly wasteful. We use more power than any other nation, and we waste more than any other nation. And I don't think that gives us the right nor any one else the right to go around trashing the place. I believe in giving back what you take from the land. Not to metion the amount of air pollution it would cost to lanuch rockets 24-7 to send all our trash into space. What a waste of money that would be.

Cyrus, yours is a far more dangerous type of ignorance than Azael - Azael is speculating, but trying to learn: you are assuming and avoiding learning.

No, I am willing to learn. But im not willing to be force fed that all is well and safe with this stuff just because you say it is. If it were so safe, why did we put it under a mountain, in leak proof containers that should last 100,000 years? Now you want to say it’s ok to shoot the stuff into space despite the fact that something might go wrong along the way? They don’t even allow transport of that stuff through major cities. I’m sorry, im not buying your argument. I just don’t see any safety in what you propose.

TheStatutoryApe

Jan29-06, 10:15 PM

I voted yes.
I would have to read up more in Fusion but I think moving in that direction would be good as well as eventually using primarily renewables where possible. I wouldn't agree with phasing it out right now though.

I read once about some manner of transmuting radioactive waste into materials much easier to deal with. I wasn't quite sure if it was a good article or not though. Also I believe that IFRs are supposed to reduce the half life of the waste dramatically. They're also able to utilize materials that are not a threat in regards to proliferation if I remember correctly.

TheStatutoryApe

Jan29-06, 10:17 PM

Because I belive that we as a nation are horribly wastefull. We use more power than any other nation, and we waste more than any other nation. And I don't think that gives us the right nor any one else the right to go around trashing the place. I believe in giving back what you take from the land.
And what exactly does this have to do with whether or not it's ok to dump waste into space?

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 10:19 PM

Its the dangers of getting it into space that worries me. Space is supposed to be something we explore, not pollute.

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 10:27 PM

Well, you are assuming that all that nuclear material goes all over the atmosphere. Actually, I was using your assumption from a previous post: "you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth." But we can do others... What if something happens just shortly after launch. Ok.... That will spread out mostly over the launch pad/local area. Not over the entire atmosphere. Will it? How? The containers that are being planned for transporting waste to the Yucca Mountains could easily withstand the destruction of the launch vehicle. Setting that aside (lets assume one gets hit by a meteor seconds after launch :uhh: - there is a calculable probability of that happening).... So now you have a problem that is localized, in significant concentrations. Yes, localized, in significant concentrations, over the atlantic ocean. Still not much of a problem. Because I believe that we as a nation are horribly wasteful. We use more power than any other nation, and we waste more than any other nation. True or not, what does that have to do with using space as a dumping-ground? And I don't think that gives us the right nor any one else the right to go around trashing the place. I believe in giving back what you take from the land. "trashing the place"? Space? Huh? We're talking about space here, Cyrus: How could anything we throw at our solar system have any impact we could possibly care about? We could use Mars as a dumping-ground for all I care, but if it bothers you, we could also use the Sun. We wouldn't even be able to measure the impact it would have, much less see it. Not to metion the amount of air pollution it would cost to lanuch rockets 24-7 to send all our trash into space. Calculate for me how many launches and how much pollution we're talking about.

Also, I already said economics are an issue - but just having to do a launch a day for 10 years (guess) isn't an insurmountable technical hurdle. No, I am willing to learn. But im not willing to be force fed that all is well and safe with this stuff just because you say it is. Cyrus, at the moment you're just pulling crap out of the air. If it were so safe, why did we put it under a mountain, in leak proof containers that should last 100,000 years? We haven't even broken ground on the Yucca site, but the reason the permanent storage is currently being studied is because people are ignorant and afraid.

When I say nuclear power is safe, what I am referring to is the fact that no one in the United States not connected with its production has ever died from it. Contrast that with fossil fuels, which kill ~20,000 in the US alone every year. Now you want to say it’s ok to shoot the stuff into space despite the fact that something might go wrong along the way? Absolutely. Take an honest look at the risk, Cyrus - don't just base your opinion on fear. They don’t even allow transport of that stuff through major cities. We wouldn't be launching it from or near cities. Not a relevant concern. I’m sorry, im not buying your argument. I just don’t see any safety in what you propose. Clearly. But that is because you aren't actually weighing any risks, you are simply reacting to your own fears.

Cyrus, there is a real risk that an asteroid the size of Texas will hit the earth next month. Does that risk keep you up at night? How much money should we spend to mitigate that risk?

chroot

Jan29-06, 10:31 PM

So now you have a problem that is localized, in significant concentrations.
Wait, wouldn't a localized problem be better than a global problem? You seem to switch sides at will.

I have to agree that sending our nuclear waste into our space is not a very sensible option. My research indicates that there are 441 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, each of which produces about 25-30 tons of high-level waste per year. While this waste is relatively small -- only 3 cubic meters per year -- it is very heavy.

The space shuttle orbiter weighs about 100 tons at launch (and it only goes to LEO), and the Saturn V's best payload estimate was only about 52 tons to the moon. This means you'd have to launch the equivalent of a space-shuttle-sized rocket vehicles every other day just to keep up with the job, if not more.

While I dispute that the air pollution from such launches would be very significant, it would certainly be a very expensive operation.

I'd still put my money on transmutation technology. At some point it will become economical, and research in it will accelerate.

- Warren

chroot

Jan29-06, 10:33 PM

Its the dangers of getting it into space that worries me. Space is supposed to be something we explore, not pollute.
Would you be opposed to dumping nuclear waste into the Sun? If so, why?

- Warren

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 10:36 PM

No, not at all. As long as you can tell me with 99.9% certainty that that rocket ant gonna come down into a city or a water source because of some sort of a fluke in the deisgn, (sorta like nasa mixing up units and crashing on mars), or that they wont make stupid moves because of time constraints and pressures, (sorta like nasa challenger) when dealing with dangerous materials. As you said, one launch every other day, would be a daunting strain on NASA to keep up. Not to mention, all those rockets are one time uses. And this is something that we will have to pay for, forever.

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 10:39 PM

Regarding your fears about transportation, here is some interesting reading: About twenty million packages of all sizes containing radioactive materials are routinely transported worldwide annually on public roads, railways and ships.

These use robust and secure containers. At sea, they are generally carried in purpose-built ships.

Since 1971 there have been more than 20 000 shipments of spent fuel and high-level wastes (over 50 000 tonnes) over more than 30 million kilometres.

There has never been any accident in which a container with highly radioactive material has been breached, or has leaked. http://www.uic.com.au/nip51.htm

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 10:50 PM

I have to agree that sending our nuclear waste into our space is not a very sensible option. Just to be clear, I want to restate that I agree - mostly for economic reasons. Ie.
My research indicates that there are 441 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, each of which produces about 25-30 tons of high-level waste per year. While this waste is relatively small -- only 3 cubic meters per year -- it is very heavy. I also read that the US has 52,000 tons in storage now that would also need to be dealt with. The space shuttle orbiter weighs about 100 tons at launch (and it only goes to LEO), and the Saturn V's best payload estimate was only about 52 tons to the moon. This means you'd have to launch the equivalent of a space-shuttle-sized rocket vehicles every other day just to keep up with the job, if not more. Technically possible, but yes - cost prohibitive. Now if that "Orion" thing ever happens.... but I won't go off speculating on when/if that would be possible. I'd still put my money on transmutation technology. At some point it will become economical, and research in it will accelerate. There is a lot of crackpottery floating around about transmutation at the moment, which is why I'm heasitant to speculate about it - but I'm an optomist and I'd never bet against technology. In 50 years, it may well be a good option.

russ_watters

Jan29-06, 10:57 PM

As long as you can tell me with 99.9% certainty that that rocket ant gonna come down into a city or a water source because of some sort of a fluke in the deisgn, (sorta like nasa mixing up units and crashing on mars), or that they wont make stupid moves because of time constraints and pressures, (sorta like nasa challenger) when dealing with dangerous materials. 99.9%? 1 in a thousand? That's it? Heck, why are we arguing - we're already there!?!

NASA has launched roughly 3,000 rockets from Cape Kennedy alone in the past 50 years and not one has ever "come down into a city or water source" (virtually all failures have ended up in the Atlantic - that's why we launch them from the Cape). So that's 1 in 3,000 and counting.

http://www.spaceline.org/statistics/50-years.html

1 in a thousand is several orders of magnitude off what the actual likelihood of some of the scenarios you are describing is. As you said, one launch every other day, would be a daunting strain on NASA to keep up. Not to mention, all those rockets are one time uses. And this is something that we will have to pay for, forever. Agreed - so then we digress. Back to the point about doing for the next 50 years what we've done for the past 50: Nothing. What's wrong with it?

Cyrus

Jan29-06, 11:01 PM

TheStatutoryApe

Jan29-06, 11:31 PM

Another point. Don't those rockets send stuff into earth orbit. Wouldn't you need a MUCH bigger rocket to send something to the sun? The satern V was used to go to the moon. I would think something at least as big would be needed for the sun, which is further, unless its easier to go to the sun.
It would need to be able take a very heavy cargo outside earth orbit. That in and of itself will take quite a bit as Chroot pointed out. Once to that point though I don't think it would take much more. Just some manuevering thrusters. Set it on a path towards the sun, probably spiralling inward to take advantage of what would more or less be a natural path. That is natural as in it will continue of it's own accord without need for any fuel. It's definitely not a very economic option at this point in time but I really don't think it would take much more to get it on it's way to the sun. Russ or Chroot would likely be more qualified to answer.

russ_watters

Jan30-06, 01:03 AM

It depends on what you want to do with it, but yes, sending something to the sun would probably cut the cargo capacity in half or more. There are, however, lower orbits that are stable enough to park trash for thousands of years.

ComputerGeek

Jan30-06, 01:16 AM

No Way.

Im not afraid of Nuclear Technology, and I think the US should deploy more plants... I do think that research needs to be put into Thorium based Nuclear power generation as it is more abundant than uranium, and the byproducts are not weponizable.

Cyrus

Jan30-06, 01:23 AM

There are, however, lower orbits that are stable enough to park trash for thousands of years.

I dont think putting trash into orbit is a very appealing idea either :frown:

russ_watters

Jan30-06, 01:31 AM

Yes, we already know that....

Cyrus

Jan30-06, 01:35 AM

But its sad that you dont care about things like that as well. You should want a clean planet for your kids and their kids. Its faily obvious the solution to the problem should be strict controls on how much energy we use, and looking for cleaner alternatives when possible. If we *really wanted to* we could, as a nation, drastically reduce our power usage. But hey, who cares, drive cars that get 12mph. Dont make things to last, just throw it away we'll make another one. I need to drive a SUV the size of a school bus, becuase my kids play soccer... :uhh: So wastefull......and so stupid. The sad part is that we won't be the ones suffering from our own greed and waste.

WarrenPlatts

Jan30-06, 06:25 AM

Whether one is pronuke or antinuke, we're all going to have to figure out something to do with all the high level waste. My vote is for the subductive waste disposal method.

Subductive waste disposal method is the state-of-the-art in nuclear waste disposal technology. It is the single viable means of disposing radioactive waste that ensures non return of the relegated material to the biosphere. At the same time, it affords inaccessibility to eliminated weapons material. The principle involved is the removal of the material from the biosphere faster than it can return. It is considered that ‘the safest, the most sensible, the most economical, the most stable long-term, the most environmentally benign, the most utterly obvious places to get rid of nuclear waste, high-level waste . . . The subductive waste disposal method forms a high-level radioactive waste repository in a subducting plate, so that the waste will be carried beneath the Earth’s crust where it will be diluted and dispersed through the mantle. The rate of subduction of a plate in one of the world’s slowest subduction zones is 2.1 cm annually. This is faster than the rate (1 mm annually) of diffusion of radionuclides through the turbidite sediments that would overlay a repository constructed in accordance with this method. (Rao, 2001, Current Science 81:1534-1546)
This technique has been patented in the U.S., Canada and Australia. The process is described in detail here (http://members.shaw.ca/subductionservices/product.htm).

There are two techniques that have been discussed. One is to drill holes thousands of feet deep in the trench, and then emplace the waste. The other is to put the waste in torpedo shaped containers, and then simply drop the containers, which bury themselves deep into the mud which has the consistancy of peanut butter. These containers are supposedly designed so they get tighter and tougher the higher the pressure. They will get buried ever deep as turbidite flows are constantly trying to infill the deep trench. Even if a container were breached, the heavy radioactive nucleotides would tend to diffuse downward, rather than up towards the water. This method would be cheap and permanent.

Right now, it costs $10,000 a pound to send things into space (LEO--to boost the stuff out of Earth orbit and set the controls for the heart of the sun costs even more). The reason nuclear is economically viable at all is because uranium costs ~$30 per pound. Once the price gets much above $500 a pound, it's not worth it anymore. That's the problem with nuclear. Until the waste problem is fixed, we just do not know the true cost of a kWh of nuclear energy.

Azael

Jan30-06, 11:24 AM

Just need to clearify a thing about my comment on shooting the waste into space. I did only mention it as a possibility if the esa phoenix project or similar is succsessfull.
There are no rockets on the phoenix. Just a 4km long track over which the vechicle is electromagneticly accelerated. Im making the big assumption that it would be alot cheaper than to use the shuttle for instance.

Anyway it wasnt realy a hardcore suggestion. More like maby a possibility in 50 years. I dont se the need to build 100 000 year storage sites.

Curys I want a clean planet for my kids and grandkids and that is exactly the reason I am pro nuclear power :)

Drasticly reducing power consumption could maby be a short term solution. But even if you manage to cut down consumption with 50% where are those 50% gonna come from?

Also the more technology we get the more power we use it seems like. Do you want to stop progress alltogheter?

Azael

Jan30-06, 11:24 AM

btw this has been one of the most informing threads that I have encountered so far :)

russ_watters

Jan30-06, 11:51 AM

But its sad that you dont care about things like that as well. Why should I care about dirtying-up space? I already asked you for an explanation and you haven't provided one. You should want a clean planet for your kids and their kids. What are you talking about?!? The quote you were responding to said nothing about the planet. But if you haven't gathered it from my posts, my position is that we need to immediately build another 200 nuclear plants to take over the capacity currently in the form of coal. Air pollution is the #1 environmental problem facing the world today.
Its faily obvious the solution to the problem should be strict controls on how much energy we use, and looking for cleaner alternatives when possible. Obvious to you, but how reasonable is that really? You won't be able to get people to give up heating and air conditioning, which is what would be required to cut our usage in half just to eliminate coal power. Even if you could force it, why would you want to? It would utterly destroy the world economy. If we *really wanted to* we could, as a nation, drastically reduce our power usage. Of course - if we really wanted to, we could all stop using electricity altogether. The question isn't what is possible, the question is what is reasonable. It is not reasonable to think we can reduce our energy usage by half without significant alteration of our way of life.

Quick question for you: are you really a "dark ages environmentalis" - ie, one who wants to cast-off all the conveniences of modern life? Or do you think it is actually possible to reduce our energy consumption by a significant/meaningful fraction (say, half) without fundamental changes in the way the modern world works?

Cyrus

Jan30-06, 12:14 PM

It is not reasonable to think we can reduce our energy usage by half without significant alteration of our way of life.

Oh dear. God forbid we dont use as much heating and air condition, or drive huge cars unnecessarily! If the rest of the world can get by without it, we sure as hell can too. Russ, there are things we can do that are REASONABLE and WOULD make an impact. Im not a dark ages environmentalist. Im just not for blantant waste and total disregard. You mean to tell me you cant drink a glass of cold water when its hot outside? You MUST have the AC turned on all the way, day and night, day in and day out? At least for the winter time people can dress in layers. Im not saing NO airconditioning/heating, im saying not as MUCH. Use in MODERATION. Europe does not use much airconditioning, and I would say they live in 1st world conditions....eh? Some people might die from the heat, like the old or infants, so they should turn on the AC. But the rest of us should be respectful to our strain on energy consumption and the waste byproducts caused by producing energy and avoid using it. Its called being prudent. You have a bad mentailty of ME ME ME MORE MORE MORE BIGGER BIGGER BIGGER its the unamerican way! If its an inconvience to you, you want to throw it aside and reject it. Well, if you want to do something about energy use, sacrifices are going to have to be made.

Orefa

Jan30-06, 01:11 PM

Today's society is drastically different from what it was a hundred years ago, and it's a safe bet that the difference will be just as drastic in another hundred years. Given this, western societies can plan in various ways. A plan for the future could just as well include a decrease in energy consumption instead of an increase. I find it equally feasible to develop more efficient devices that consume less as to develop more sources of energy. There is no need to fear the dark ages, we're talking of the future. It can be a future of relentless energy production and consumption, or it can be a more sober future of conservation and balance. And still have AC where needed.

Cyrus

Jan30-06, 01:14 PM

Words of wisdom. :biggrin:

(Look im a nice guy see!?)

chroot

Jan30-06, 01:17 PM

cyrusabdollahi,

The energy crisis is not localized to the US. Other developing countries, like China, stand poised to take the crown of "most wasteful country" in the next century anyway. It just happens that, at the moment, the US is the world's largest consumer of resources per capita -- it won't always be that way, but some country will always be #1.

This discussion does not need to be derailed into a discussion of how the "American lifestyle" is the root of all evil. I agree that proper education and better efforts for conservation are very important, but I disagree that Americans are somehow so different from other people that they can be uniformly characterized as "wasteful" or that they deserve to bear the burden of the entire world's energy problem.

It's true that Europeans get by with lower consumer energy expenditure. Why? Because their homes are generally much, much smaller than American homes. Why are American homes so much bigger? Is it because Americans are greedy bastards who want to see the destruction of the planet? In general, at least: No. It's because America has more land, and larger houses are within the economic means of a larger number of people -- so we buy them.

If the Europeans had more land at their disposal and large houses were relatively cheap, you can bet that few of them would continue to live in 500 sq. ft. apartments. They'd wind up just like Americans. They're not "better people," they just have a different geographic and economic environment.

Your focus on "wasteful Americans" also seems painfully short-sighted. You seem to be concerned about conservation at home: turning off lights when you don't need them, not using air conditioning when a fan might work just as well, and so on. You're missing the much bigger picture: industry uses more energy that residential users. Even if residential users cut their energy use in half (which is perhaps possible, though very difficult to achieve), the total energy consumption of the US would decrease by only 20%. Substantial, but not enough to eliminate the energy crisis.

You could try telling the industries to reduce their consumption, but most industries already operate as efficiently as is reasonably possible (they're out to make a profit, of course). Industry, of course, is what has made the US so wealthy and powerful in the first place. If you try to cut US industrial energy use in half, you're quickly going to find that the global economy will suffer dramatically.

In my opinion, consumption is just part of an equilibrium point. As energy costs increase, it will become more and more economically worthwhile to build ultra-efficient homes, or retrofit older homes. We'll see consumption fall as prices go up -- ultimately large-scale economics, not residential users with their fingers on their thermostats, governs the large-scale behavior of the entire energy system.

- Warren

Cyrus

Jan30-06, 01:39 PM

The energy crisis is not localized to the US. Other developing countries, like China, stand poised to take the crown of "most wasteful country" in the next century anyway. It just happens that, at the moment, the US is the world's largest consumer of resources per capita -- it won't always be that way, but some country will always be #1.

Yes, I agree. But they should be held equally accountable.

This discussion does not need to be derailed into a discussion of how the "American lifestyle" is the root of all evil. I agree that proper education and better efforts for conservation are very important, but I disagree that Americans are somehow so different from other people that they can be uniformly characterized as "wasteful" or that they deserve to bear the burden of the entire world's energy problem.

I dont think the american way of life is the root of all evil. I think the true lack of any political leadership to do anything serious about the energy problem is the root of the evil. I think the numbers are to the effect that we have less than 5% of the world population but use more energy than any other nation. Granted alot of that is used in goods. But the way things are going, is anything manufactured in USA anymore? Its all outsourced.

It's true that Europeans get by with lower consumer energy expenditure. Why? Because their homes are generally much, much smaller than American homes. Why are American homes so much bigger? Is it because Americans are greedy bastards who want to see the destruction of the planet? In general, at least: No. It's because America has more land, and larger houses are within the economic means of a larger number of people -- so we buy them.

Well, look back 50 years. The size of an average house was much smaller. People used alot less, and saved alot more. Their lives were not in the 'dark ages.'

They're not "better people," they just have a different geographic and economic environment.

I never said they are any better. Im just showing that you can live very well without the need for so many extra niceties that use power.

Even if residential users cut their energy use in half (which is perhaps possible, though very difficult to achieve), the total energy consumption of the US would decrease by only 20%. Substantial, but not enough to eliminate the energy crisis.

Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win. I think 20% of the power saved by a country that uses the most power in the world is quite a respectable achievment. It would do alot of good. Look at Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.

As Americans, we should be setting an example to the rest of the world on how we treat the environment and how we use energy. I think there is allot we could do, that would influence other countries as well. And that would have a HUGE impact on the world.

chroot

Jan30-06, 01:54 PM

Well, look back 50 years. The size of an average house was much smaller. People used alot less, and saved alot more. Their lives were not in the 'dark ages.'
Do you have some evidence for this claim about American houses being much smaller 50 years ago?
I never said they are any better. Im just showing that you can live very well without the need for so many extra niceties that use power.
Are you aware that Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US? (Source: DOE 2001 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter2.html)
Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win.
Do you think you're the first person to realize that more efficient industry yeilds greater profits? Do you think industries are not already trying to maximize their efficiency? Do you have any specific methods by which industries should magically increase their efficiency without affecting their economic position, or do you only argue in vague, uninformed, accusatory tones?
Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.
Japan has nowhere near the energy-intensive industrialization as does the US. You're arguing out of ignorance.
As Americans, we should be setting an example to the rest of the world on how we treat the environment and how we use energy. I think there is allot we could do, that would influence other countries as well. And that would have a HUGE impact on the world.
I agree that we should set an example -- I agree that we, as a nation, could do more to conserve resources. I disagree strongly that there's some magic bullet to be found, or some individual people who deserve to have fingers pointed at them. We happen to live in the most industrialized country in the world, and thus use the most energy. The two go hand-in-hand, and no amount of your enviro-babble cooing (e.g. "Ooh! let's just reduce consumption by 50%! It's not so hard! Let's just eat ice cream in the summer!") is going to cut our energy use in half without affecting every economy on the planet.

- Warren

WarrenPlatts

Jan30-06, 02:22 PM

Why should I care about dirtying-up space? I already asked you for an explanation and you haven't provided one.
Leaving aside environmental ethics, there are practicle problems with using Earth orbit as a dumping ground. Already Norad keeps track of thousands of manmade space objects, most of which serve no useful function anymore. These are a hazard to space navigation. And if any of the nuclear waste containers collided with eachother or something else, they will break apart into hundreds or thousands of smaller particles that increase the threat. We're back to the question of intergenerational ethics again: it's morally wrong that we dump the problem of monitoring thousands of radioactive packages in Earth orbit onto future generations. Moreover, as space travel becomes more common, there would little to prevent a bad guy with a space ship to go get one of the containers to make nuke bombs or dirty bombs out of. Until a space elevator or something similar is built that can reliably launch trash into the sun, the idea that nuke waste can be sent into space is idle speculation at best.

The subductive waste disposal method, however, is a concrete proposal that is economical and permanent, and it might just work.

Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win. I think 20% of the power saved by a country that uses the most power in the world is quite a respectable achievment. It would do alot of good. Look at Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.
One technology that could do this that is right around the corner is LED lighting. These are an order of magnitude more efficient per lumen than incandescent light bulbs. Even florescent lights are now old-fashioned.

Another thing residential and industrial users can do is purchase wind electricity futures, which are now available in most places. You wouldn't be directly conserving, but at least you can make sure your energy is coming from a green source. The government could institute a CO2 credit trading system like their is for sulpher dioxide.

One other thing the government can do is ensure that the price of dirty electricity reflects the true cost of that electricity--i.e., make sure all externalities are priced into what the consumer pays for each kilowatt-hour. As I have written elsewhere (platts.com (http://andystest.typepad.com/renewables/2006/01/are_renewables_.html#comments)), if this were done, the unfair competitive advantage that coal and nuclear have over renewables would be eliminated.

Do you have some evidence for this claim about American houses being much smaller 50 years ago?
Yeah, just drive around some older neighborhoods, and you'll be able to see for yourself.

WarrenPlatts

Jan30-06, 03:50 PM

One other thing that has been swept under the rug so far is the issue of nuclear weapons proliferation. If a terrorist ever sets off a nuke in lower Manhattan or Long Beach, it will most likely be constructed out of uranium diverted from "peaceful" energy production. Should the nuclear industry be required to pay for such damages?

Think about it this way: if nuclear energy had never caught on at all anywhere in the world, how would the world be a different place today? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island would never have happened. North Korea and Pakstan would not have the bomb. The current embroglio with Iran wouldn't be happening. There would be little to no nuclear waste to be disposed of.

There might be more coal plants burning now, but the example of Denmark shows that we might have a lot more renewables going as well.

What about the military cost of containing nations like North Korea and Iran who have or are about to have nuclear weapons as a result of widespread nuclear power plants? Is this not an externality that is not reflected in the price of a nuclear kWh? We choose to ignore these issues at our peril. To my way of thinking, if there is ever a future nuclear exchange with a country that would not have nuke were it not for all the uranium floating around in the hundreds of NPP's in the world, then nuclear power will not have been worth it; I don't care if the world's oceans would be a foot higher than they are now.

Orefa

Jan30-06, 04:15 PM

(Look im a nice guy see!?)
Sure, and don't sweat it. Disagreements happen, so do agreements. And I don't hold grudges (too heavy).

Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US
It's colder up north though. Since economies and lifestyles are very similar, this difference could be just heating costs.

there are practicle problems with using Earth orbit as a dumping ground.
I wouldn't like my planet to share an orbit with all this waste either. Dumping in the Sun would be a more permanent solution, but a more costly one. As I understand it, you need to cancel out the speed of the Earth's orbit in order to achieve this. If you don't then the load will simply assumes a lower orbit instead of truly falling in. So adding up escape velocity of 11.2 km/s and our planet's orbital speed of about 30 km/s, each load has to be accelerated to 41.2 km/s to achieve the result. If anyone has information on the fuel and rocket cost required to do this for a ton of material, we can guesstimate the cost of such permanent disposal.

The subductive waste disposal method, however, is a concrete proposal that is economical and permanent, and it might just work.
It's an intriguing concept, but aren't there a lot of unknowns as to what truly happens at the core of the Earth? Have these geological theories been verified? The concern of course is about just throwing our waste in some inaccessible area that is outside our control and assuming that everyting will be fine.

Cyrus

Jan30-06, 04:29 PM

Are you aware that Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US? (Source: DOE 2001

Well, the majority of their electricity is from hydroelectric. We cant say that 60% of our power is from a clean alternative. I got this info from:http://archive.wn.com/2004/11/03/1400/canadaenergy

Canadian electricity generation in 1999 totaled 567.2 billion kilowatt hours (bkwh), of which 60% was hydropower, 26% was conventional thermal power (oil, gas, and coal), 12% was nuclear generation, and 1% was derived from other renewable sources.

From your own source:

Canada is the G-7’s largest per capita electricity consumer. To a considerable extent, this is because of Canada’s large, hydro-powered aluminum-manufacturing sector. Between 1980 and 2001, Canadian per capita power consumption increased an average of 1.0% per year, from 13,100 kwh to 16,200 kwh.

As for my mention of Japan,
Japan has nowhere near the energy-intensive industrialization as does the US. You're arguing out of ignorance.

Perhaps I was not clear. What I was trying to convey was the fact that the standard of living in Japan has gone up significantly in the last ~30 years, while the power consumption has remained relatively neutral. Thats was my point. Not to compare its energy use to the US. To show that alot of countries CAN, if they WANT TO, try to model themselves after Japan. (Small countries). If you get enough countries to do this, it will add up big in the end, because many 3rd world developing countries can remain moderately netural as they indusrialize.

I admit I have little facts right now. I will have to do some digging to get some stuff up for you warren, my appologies. I have not had time to do an extensive search.

P.S. Its not environmental babble, history has already shown us the nasty conditions of the industrial revolution. I dont think we want to revert back to those conditions when its within our powers to avoid it. In the long term ~100-150 years, if things dont get better, and we are not careful in how we consume, we will have lots of chemical waste accumulating from years and years of dumping unnecessarily.

We had a mission in the 60's to get into space, and we did it. If the government is to show any seriousness in tackling the problem of energy, there should be a national movement to encourage math engineering and physics, to study fusion and other potential energy sources to try and come up with a solution. You should see significant improvements on how energy is used on a global scale.

WarrenPlatts

Jan30-06, 04:54 PM

[Subductive waste disposal is] an intriguing concept, but aren't there a lot of unknowns as to what truly happens at the core of the Earth? Have these geological theories been verified? The concern of course is about just throwing our waste in some inaccessible area that is outside our control and assuming that everyting will be fine.
The theory of plate tectonics is one of the most well-confirmed scientific theories known to humankind. There is a lot less disagreement among geologists regarding the reality of plate tectonics than there is among cosmologists regarding the reality of the Big Bang.

Any waste wouldn't make it to the Earth's core, it would eventually get mixed into the Earth's mantle. Eventually, some of the material might resurface through volcanic eruptions; however, the radioactive material would have decayed long before this could happen. The waste will get sucked down faster than it can diffuse upward, so there is little chance of contaminating seawater.

The waste will be carried beneath the Earth’s crust where it will be diluted and dispersed through the mantle. The rate of subduction of a plate in one of the world’s slowest subduction zones is 2.1 cm annually. This is faster than the rate (1 mm annually) of diffusion of radionuclides through the turbidite sediments that would overlay a repository constructed in accordance with this method. The subducting plate is naturally predestined for consumption in the Earth’s mantle. The subducting plate is constantly renewed at its originating oceanic ridge. The slow movement of the plate would seal any vertical fractures over a repository at the interface between the subducting plate and the overriding plate.

Note that faster plates move at a rate closer to 10 cm per year.

chroot

Jan30-06, 05:27 PM

Well, the majority of their electricity is from hydroelectric.
And your point? Are you suggesting that all countries should be able to produce 60% of their energy from hydro? This obviously is not the sort of thing one can legislate; there are only so many rivers.

It's colder up north though. Since economies and lifestyles are very similar, this difference could be just heating costs.
But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half. It appears to me that those damn arrogant, wasteful Canadians aren't wearing nearly enough sweaters, and their wasteful, disgraceful lifestyle is driving the whole planet into ruin. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi? Or was your irrational attack limited only to the US, which actually uses less energy per capita?

To a considerable extent, this is because of Canada’s large, hydro-powered aluminum-manufacturing sector.
Hey, no problem, let's remove the industry. Canada used 403 million BTU per capita in 2001, while its entire industry used 2,680,111 terajoules, or 78.4 million BTU per capita (with a population of 32.4 million people). That means that Canadian residential users alone -- the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet -- used almost as much energy (324 million BTU per capita) as the average US citizen including its industry (342 million BTU per capita).

It's amazing what you can learn when you read, isn't it cyrusabdollahi? Do you still think the "wasteful US lifestyle" is responsible for our worldwide energy crisis?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter2.html
http://www.cieedac.sfu.ca/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANADA

Perhaps I was not clear. What I was trying to convey was the fact that the standard of living in Japan has gone up significantly in the last ~30 years, while the power consumption has remained relatively neutral.
You really need to brush up on those reading skills before entering these kinds of debates.

Japan’s per capita energy consumption increased an average of 1.7% per year between 1980 and 1996. From 1997 to 2001, however, its annual growth rate was -0.1%, which likely reflects the country’s economic downturn. Japan’s low overall per capita consumption rate is indicative of Japan’s comparatively smaller share of energy intensive industries.

The United States remains the second largest per capita electricity consumer in the G-7 behind Canada. U.S. per capita electricity consumption grew at a comparatively modest pace between 1980 and 2001 -- an average of 1.5% per year

You call 1.7% annually flat? JAPAN'S ENERGY CONSUMPTION GREW FASTER THAN THE US' CONSUMPTION!

And I can't even believe that you're willing to give Canada a break because it has energy-intensive aluminum industries, yet you pride Japan as the trend-setter in energy consumption, when it lacks those industries.

You have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

if things dont get better, and we are not careful in how we consume, we will have lots of chemical waste accumulating from years and years of dumping unnecessarily.
Chemical waste?? I thought this thread was about nuclear power! Quit trying to change the subject to support your enviro-babble!

- Warren

Cyrus

Jan30-06, 06:35 PM

But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half. It appears to me that those damn arrogant, wasteful Canadians aren't wearing nearly enough sweaters, and their wasteful, disgraceful lifestyle is driving the whole planet into ruin. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi? Or was your irrational attack limited only to the US, which actually uses less energy per capita?

Im not attacking the US. I have pride in our nation, despite what you may think. Just because I criticize does not mean that I hate the US. And no, my panties are not in a bunch. I was not attacking the US, as you claim.

the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet. That's what you meant, right cyrusabdollahi?

But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half.
I never said anything of the sort about Candians, you did. I also never said wearing sweaters would cut it in half, you took my words out of context, thanks. You are putting words in my mouth. Now this is just getting out of hand. Im not going to get into a shouting match with you, that was not my intention. End of discussion, goodbye.

SOS2008

Jan30-06, 06:52 PM

Trying to controll the population of the rich countries would be totaly wasted effort since many of those countries already have aging and diminishing populations. Only imigration keeps the numbers up.

In china, india, middle east population controll would help to prevent a explosion in power usage. But in the western world I se no need for it at all, it would probably hurt our societs alot to try and keep population growth down.

Goverments need to step in and restrict energy consumption if anything is to be done.

But if the people have a chooise betwen giving up some quality of life or wanting more nuclear power plants no one would vote no to nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldnt.I snoozed off there, but to reply to this (and other member's posts), I was referring to population control globally (which would decrease the need to enter richer countries illegally):

Conservative Christian allies of the president are pressing the U.S. foreign aid agency to give fewer dollars to groups that distribute condoms or work with prostitutes.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10789265/

These religious groups with no experience in grant programs are vying for the funds to promote promiscuity, which has yet to show effectiveness.

So I take it that methane isn't of interest?

alexandra

Jan31-06, 10:20 AM

What do you mean by "temporary"? How many years do you think we can go before running out of nuclear fuel?I'm not sure, Russ - is anyone, though? I have just heard on news reports that it is a temporary solution, and very capital-intensive in the initial phases of setting up the facilities.

I voted "no" because of nuclear power's track record and cost: it is safe, clean, inexpensive (relative to "alternative" energy sources), and plentiful.I voted "yes' to phasing it out because I'd rather the world's most intelligent scientists/engineers focus on more long-term, sustainable, even 'cleaner' solutions. But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...

Orefa

Jan31-06, 11:38 AM

But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...
Never think that your opinion is invalid unless you ARE an expert. When only experts in a field are consulted you generally see a bias in favour due to the group's vested interest (look at the health reports sponsored by tobacco companies for illustration purposes). In spite of what some experts may say, non-experts can still voice valid opinions.

Astronuc

Jan31-06, 11:52 AM

I voted "yes' to phasing it out because I'd rather the world's most intelligent scientists/engineers focus on more long-term, sustainable, even 'cleaner' solutions. But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion... I agree with Orefa. The opinion expressed is valid.

I am one of the experts in the field, and I voted 'maybe' for much the same reason as expressed. If there is a less invasive and more cost effective technology that can meet the needs of humanity, that is where the effort should be placed.

But I am, like my colleagues, committed to safe, peaceful and economical use of nuclear energy.

WarrenPlatts

Jan31-06, 12:26 PM

Ah, but these less invasive and more cost effective technologies tend to be more boring from an engineering perspective. Take wind power: there is a lot more to it than most people realize--but compare that to a pebble bed nuclear reactor! Think about it: what would you rather work on? There are so many more parts that have to be put together just so. . . . Saying you're a nuclear engineer is so much more fascinating than saying you're a wind farmer. It's like being a high priest in the old days, you've got this stuff (human souls, radioactive material) that only you can control. You get to speak a different language that only you and your fellow nuclear engineers understand. Such power!!! And you don't even have to run for office! And the lame politicos have to take your advice because you are the only one who knows the Truth.

Astronuc

Jan31-06, 01:10 PM

Ah, but these less invasive and more cost effective technologies tend to be more boring from an engineering perspective. Not really! There are challenges in obtaining the optimal design for a wind turbine, and pushing the technical limits. Computational fluid dynamics is interesting and challenging whether its a wind turbine or the core of a nuclear reactor.Take wind power: there is a lot more to it than most people realize--but compare that to a pebble bed nuclear reactor! Think about it: what would you rather work on? I'd be happy to work on either one. There are engineering/intellectual challenges in both. There are so many more parts that have to be put together just so. . . . Saying you're a nuclear engineer is so much more fascinating than saying you're a wind farmer. I never think in those terms. It's like being a high priest in the old days, you've got this stuff (human souls, radioactive material) that only you can control. You get to speak a different language that only you and your fellow nuclear engineers understand. Such power!!! And you don't even have to run for office! And the lame politicos have to take your advice because you are the only one who knows the Truth. Nuclear engineering is just what I do, not who I am. It's a mixed bag. I have done some really incredibly and unbelievably exciting things, I have had worries that most do not, and there is also a lot of mundane work. Actually, I look forward to mundane sometimes.

vanesch

Jan31-06, 02:21 PM

Once the price gets much above $500 a pound, it's not worth it anymore. That's the problem with nuclear. Until the waste problem is fixed, we just do not know the true cost of a kWh of nuclear energy.

This is correct, but it is equally correct to state that concerning the consumption of fossil fuels. In a few hundred years, we will have used up a capital of 300 million years. I don't think that the price per barrel of crude is representing the true cost. If the predictions of climate change are true, then the true cost of fossil fuels is even much higher - in fact almost infinitely higher, if this turns out to be a global disaster.

It is the reason I voted for nuclear energy. With nuclear energy, the waste is "under control" in the sense that it is not potentially leading to a global disaster. At a certain point in time, it will have to be cleaned up, and we already (as you quoted) know a few techniques. Others are nuclear incineration, using accelerators.

Now, I'm also totally in favor for renewable sources, but the point is that they don't yet have the scale to replace entirely "classical" production. We're talking about installations, the size of large cities, and their ecological impact should also be studied. On the other hand, we KNOW right now how to build efficient and safe nuclear power plants. It is a mature technology. It is in my opinion THE FASTEST way to get away from the fossil-fuel trap. It can buy us a century or so to devellop enough renewal-energy sources to phase it out (and to get rid in a safe way, of the waste). EVEN if it is more expensive. We'll get out of the fuel trap faster.

You're talking about the proliferation risk. I would say that if the west (and mainly the US) would simply STOP putting its nose into the Oil-floating countries' business, say they can shove it with their oil, that we get independent from them, that they organize themselves politically and economically how they see fit, that the entire "terrorist threat" would fall down. You can even see Islamic terrorism as a consequence of the fossil-fuel business. And nuclear terrorism without state motivation has no chance.

Astronuc

Jan31-06, 03:09 PM

There was a situation in the US about 10 years ago, when during a very cold period, natural gas was diverted to heating, the rivers were frozen so coal and oil deliveries were down so some fossil plants weren't operating, and the margins on several electrical grids were so tight that one plant down would have taken the entire NE down.

The nuclear plants keep the grid up. :rolleyes:

WarrenPlatts

Feb2-06, 04:12 PM

Well, the consensus seems to be that we expand nuclear energy production despite the fact that no one here can propose an adequate (i.e., permanent and failsafe) solution to the waste disposal problem. Even Astronuc is unwilling to endorse a particular waste disposal method.

If there is one good reason for nuclear power it is that its greenhouse emmissions are minimal (to the extent that mining and refining fissile materials emits greenhouse gases, nuclear is not CO2 free).

Lithuania has about the lowest per capita greenhouse emmisions in the world--and it also generates over 80% of its electricity through nuclear.

This raises a new poll question: I see a lot of skepticism regarding global warming in these forums. Who among you pronuke folks do not believe that fossil fuel CO2 causes global warming?

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 02:39 AM

Your focus on "wasteful Americans" also seems painfully short-sighted. You seem to be concerned about conservation at home: turning off lights when you don't need them, not using air conditioning when a fan might work just as well, and so on. You're missing the much bigger picture: industry uses more energy that residential users. Even if residential users cut their energy use in half (which is perhaps possible, though very difficult to achieve), the total energy consumption of the US would decrease by only 20%. Substantial, but not enough to eliminate the energy crisis.

You could try telling the industries to reduce their consumption, but most industries already operate as efficiently as is reasonably possible (they're out to make a profit, of course). Industry, of course, is what has made the US so wealthy and powerful in the first place. If you try to cut US industrial energy use in half, you're quickly going to find that the global economy will suffer dramatically.

Hey, no problem, let's remove the industry. Canada used 403 million BTU per capita in 2001, while its entire industry used 2,680,111 terajoules, or 78.4 million BTU per capita (with a population of 32.4 million people). That means that Canadian residential users alone -- the ones who apparently are such arrogants pricks that they won't wear sweaters to save our planet -- used almost as much energy (324 million BTU per capita) as the average US citizen including its industry (342 million BTU per capita).

It's amazing what you can learn when you read, isn't it cyrusabdollahi? Do you still think the "wasteful US lifestyle" is responsible for our worldwide energy crisis?

As you quite well say, care to back that up???

Ok, lets talk numbers, sir. Lets see what you are failing to see. I shall now give you strictly official reports published by the US government department of energy on US energy consumption for the year 2004.

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html

This link, scroll down specifically to: "Consumption in 1997 by sector: - United States"

What does it say, sir?

Transportation 25.04 quads 27%
Industrial 35.43 quads 38%
Residential & commercial 33.74 quads 36%
TOTAL 94.21 quads

So, what was that you said about industry being the main user of energy in the United States? It appears that Transportation and Residential & Commercial combined are nearly 63% of our countries power consumption. Perhaps, reading would do you some good as well.

It's amazing what you can learn when you read, isn't it cyrusabdollahi?

Yes, you can find peoples erroneous arguments, I agree!

Now, lets further this argument with more recent data, shall we? Next, I present to you, a Fuel and Oil Sales Report for November 2004, by the US Department of Energy, office of oil and natural gas. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/fuel_oil_and_kerosene_sales/current/pdf/foksall.pdf

I will now call your attention to the various charts presented:

Page 5, Table HL1: The industrial power consumption comes in at a share of 3.7% for 2004 distillate and 13.1% residual fuel oils. Residential: 10.7% distillate, ( residential does not use residual fuels.)

Page 13, Table 1: Industrial came in at a whopping, 2,326,604 thousand gallons, whereas, all other areas, mainly transportation and residential and commercial, came in at 59,931,330. Which shows us that industry is around 3.8% of the total use of fuel oils in this country out of all the other uses, in terms of distillate.
Residential: 6,644,939 10.6% of the total. 3 times as much as industry!

Page 14, table 2, residual fuel oils:

Industry, 1,539,830. Total, 11,794,362. Again, 13.055% of the total.

Page 15, Table 3, Kerosene Usage,

industrial: 192,588, total: 988,680 ~20% of total kerosene use.
residential: 627,842 ~ 63.50% a factor of 3 times a much as industry!

Nomenclature: According to the authors of this report:

Commercial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of service-providing facilities and equipment of nonmanufacturing businesses; Federal, State, and local governments; and other private and public organizations, such as religious, social, or fraternal groups. The commercial sector includes institutional living quarters. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking and running a wide variety of other equipment.

Industrial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of all facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining. Overall energy use in this sector is largely for process heat and cooling and powering machinery, with lesser amounts used for facility heating, air conditioning, and lighting. Fossil fuels are also used as raw material inputs to manufactured products.

Residential. An energy-consuming sector that consists of living quarters for private households. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking, and running a variety of other appliances. Sales to farmhouses are reported under “Farm” and sales to apartment buildings are reported under “Commercial.”

Residual Fuel Oils. A general classification for the heavier oils, know as No. 5 and No. 6 fuel oils that remain after the distillate fuel oils an lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away in refinery operations. It conforms to ASTM Specification D 396 and D 975 and Federal Specification VV-F-815C. No. 5, a residual fuel oil of medium viscosity, is also know as Navy Special anis defined in Military Specification MIL-F859E, including Amendment 2 (NATO Symbol F-77). It is used in steam-powered vessels in government service and inshore power plants. No. 6 fuel oil includes Bunker C fuel oil and is used for the production of electric power, space heating, vessel bunkering, and various industrial purposes. The United States includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Kerosene. A light petroleum distillate that is used in space heater, cook stoves, an water heaters and is suitable for use as a light source when burned in wick-fed lamps. Kerosene has a maximum distillation temperature of 400 degrees Fahrenheit at the 10-percent recovery point, a final boiling point of 572 degrees Fahrenheit, and a minimum flash point of 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Included are No. 1-k and No. 2-k, the two grades of kerosene called range or stove oil, which have properties similar to those of No. 1 fuel oil.

Distillate Fuel Oil. A general classification for one of the petroleum fractions produced in conventional distillation operations. It includes diesel fuels and fuel oils. Products known as No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 diesel fuel are used in on-highway diesel engines, such as those in trucks and automobiles, as well as off-highway engines, such as those in railroad locomotives and agricultural machinery. Products known as No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 fuel oils are used primarily for space heating and electric power generation.

As for wearing sweaters warren:

Weather was another factor that played a significant role in curtailing distillate demand in 2004 and its impact was more widespread than typical. 2004 was both considerably warmer than 2003 and also considerably warmer than normal. Although the overall difference in 2004 compared to 2003 as measured in heating degree days was just 3.8 percent for the nation as a whole, when examined on a regional basis the differences are more pronounced,particularly in the principal fuel oil consuming sections of the country (New England, the Middle Atlantic and East North Central) where heating oil demand for both residential and commercial consumers is the greatest. The winter of 2004 was warmer than the winter of 2003 in all three of the principal consuming regions and was also warmer than normal in both the Middle Atlantic and the East North Central regions. Overall, sales of heating oil to the residential sector decreased by 282 million gallons or 4.1 percent to 6.6 billion gallons. The warmer than normal winter also contributed to a sharp decline in distillate sales for use in the electric power generation. In addition, the summer was also cooler than the summer of 2003 in most regions of the U.S.; consequently, demand for distillate fuel to meet peak summer generation loads was not a great as it had been in 2003.9 Sales to the utility sector fell in every region of the country, dropping by 324.3 million gallons a decline of 28.3 percent.

What does this show us? "The warmer than normal winter also contributed to a sharp decline in distillate sales for use in the electric power generation."

I.e, weather was a major factor. Thus, using less heating and air-condition does have a significant impact.

On to Kerosene,

Sales of kerosene jumped by more than 18 percent increasing by 151.2 million gallons. Sales increased to all sectors generally in all regions of the country. The largest increases occurred residential and industrial sectors where sales increased by 107.0 million gallons and 28.2 million gallons respectively. Residential sales increased in all three Subdistricts of PAD District 1. Sales increased the most in Subdistrict B of PAD District 1 where they grew by 40.9 million gallons or 25.2 percent. Sales to the commercial sector increased in all regions with the exception of Subdistrict C of PAD District 1, the South Atlantic region which suffered damage from a number of hurricanes, particularly from Hurricane Ivan.

So you can see, residential usage was MUCH higher than industry. Almost 4 times as much as industry in terms of increase that year.

If you combine residential and transportation uses, the numbers are staggering, around 60% in some cases. This makes industry INSIGNIFICANT!

This is why I keep saying for pete's sake, we have to change the amount of power we use, and the kind of cars we drive. They DO have a MAJOR impact on our energy situation. We are the number one consumer of power, if we reduced transportation and residential, ~50-60% of our power needs would be reduced as well ( WITHOUT LAYING A FINGER ON INDUSTRY MIND YOU!) . And that would clearly be a SIGNIFICANT reduction in power use overall. We MUST utilize fuel efficient cars and transportation systems, (i.e. trains, boats and freight trucks), and reduce residential power use.

The evidence clearly supports my view Warren.

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 11:31 AM

Lets further shine light on this faulty argument you have, sir.

Lets move on to coal, which is the major area where our power comes from.

I now refer you to this paper by the Department of Energy, washington dc, Annual Coal Report 2004.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/05842004.pdf

Consumption
The continuing economic recovery in 2004 pushed total
U.S. coal consumption to another record level. Data
show that total coal consumption increased 10.5 million
short tons to reach a level of 1,105.4 million short tons,
an increase of 1.0 percent. The electric power sector
(electric utilities and independent power producers)
accounted for almost 92 percent of all coal consumed in
the United States in 2004. The other coal-consuming
sectors (other industrial, coking coal, and residential and
commercial sectors) had minor changes in their
consumption totals. The other industrial sector had
almost the same level of coal consumption in 2004 as in
2003, while the coking coal sector had a decrease of 2.4
percent. The residential and commercial sector, the
smallest of all coal consuming sectors, (accounting for
less than one half of one percent of total consumption),
remained at the same level in 2004.
92% went to making power.
All other went to residential, inustrial and commercial.

This means 92% of the coal is being burned in the power plants, not the industries.

Now I refer you to the bar graph on page 13, If you add the three areas, Nuclear, Hydro, Petroleum and natural gas, you get 48.6% of the power production for the united states, for all fuel sources not just coal. That seems like an awful lot of power that could be saved, as I said, *If we really wanted to.* Nuclear and Hydro are already nearly 100% savings by definition. Natural Gas and Petrol could be significantly reduced, the explination why is above in the previous post.

Next, lets look at natural gas: Natural Gas Outlook through 2025:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/presentation/natgasoutlook/natgasoutlook.html

I refer you to slide no. 10:

Now look at the chart for 2005.

Adding up residential and commercial natural gas usage: it totals 7.5 (trillion cubic feet), adding up industrial and electrical generators, you get 12.5 (trillion cubic feet). This means residential comprises 37.5% of all natural gas usage. Clearly not as much as indusrial and electrial combined, but still not insignificant!

A better paper, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/natgas/013103.pdf, Natural Gas Annual Report, 2004.

page 41, figure 10. It is clearly evident that residential and commercial together are not insignificant compared with industrial and electric power.

Furthermore, lets see what the DOE has to say about residential power usage:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/consumption/enduse2001.html

The largest use of electricity in the average U.S. household was for appliances (including refrigerators and lights), which consume approximately two thirds of all the electricity used in the residential sector.....Air-conditioning accounted for an estimated 16 percent, space heating 10 percent, and water heating 9 percent

It seems all those sweaters would make 2/3, or 75% of an impact on the residential power catagory in the united states. hmmmmmm still sounds like enviro-babble warren?

Furthermore, coal seems to clearly be our BIGGEST fuel used for making electricity. So, I wonder where all that electricity goes? Well, lets find out....
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/elecinfocard.html

Coal makes up 49.8% of what is used to produce electricity.

So what exactly is industries share, warren?

industrial: 29%

residential: 36% commercial: 35% transportation 0.5%

I now refer you to another DOE paper:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/electricity/034804.pdf

Page 13, table ES: ElectricPower report annual, 2004

Sales to Ultimate Customers (thousand megawatthours)
Residential .................................................. ... 1,293,587
Industrial .................................................. ...... 1,018,522

So we clearly see the majority of usage of power by the major source of where we get our power goes to, yes, YOU AND ME, and NOT to a factory.

I rest my case.

chroot

Feb4-06, 12:55 PM

As you quite well say, care to back that up???

Every number I used in my calculations were on the three links I provided on my previous post. Read them.

So, what was that you said about industry being the main user of energy in the United States? It appears that Transportation and Residential & Commercial combined are nearly 63% of our countries power consumption. Perhaps, reading would do you some good as well.

Most reports consider the term "industry" to include both "industrial" (i.e. motors and factory powerplants) and "commercial" (i.e. lighting and heat for office buildings). I don't see the utility in considering only the factories alone. If you compare (industrial + commercial) use to residential use, you'll see what I'm talking about. You apparently have recently read one report on energy use, yet think you know eveything.

Now, lets further this argument with more recent data, shall we? Next, I present to you, a Fuel and Oil Sales Report for November 2004, by the US Department of Energy, office of oil and natural gas.

Who gives a crap about fuel oil consumption rates? I never once mentioned anything about it. I was talking about total energy consumption, regardless of its generation. The rest of your post is therefore completely irrelevant as a rebuttal. I'm glad to see that, perhaps, it indicates you're learning to read, however.

The evidence clearly supports my view Warren.

Which of your views has been supported? That

a) The US is the largest user of energy per capita? (It's not.)
b) American residential users are as big a consumer of energy as commercial and industrial users? (They aren't.)
c) The Japanese have managed to do as much as we do with less energy? (They don't.)
d) The Japanese have managed to improve their standard of living continuously without increasing their energy expenditure? (They haven't.)

Which of these views, precisely, do your fuel oil consumption charts support?

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 01:07 PM

Who gives a crap about fuel oil consumption rates? I never once mentioned anything about it. I was talking about total energy consumption, regardless of its generation. The rest of your post is therefore completely irrelevant as a rebuttal. I'm glad to see that, perhaps, it indicates you're learning to read, however.

I give a crap, becuase these are the major areas that we get our power from. I have already shown you the statistic for non coal based power consumption in the US, ~48%. It is 100% relevant, as it affects our total overall energy consumption.

Most reports consider the term "industry" to include both "industrial" (i.e. motors and factory powerplants) and "commercial" (i.e. lighting and heat for office buildings).

I have already provided the nomenclature on that issue.

If you compare (industrial + commercial) use to residential use, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Nope, I wont. Becuase you said it was industrial that was the major sink of power, and I have shown you that it is not. Im not going to argue with you about this issue, because I have given you reports by the US government that clearly show you are wrong. Industry is not the driving force of our energy use in this country. It is commercial, residential and transportation.

chroot

Feb4-06, 01:07 PM

Lets move on to coal, which is the major area where our power comes from.

Why? I have no interest in the specific generation fuel, as I said in my previous post. I took argument to your claims about energy consumption, which were entirely erroneous.

Now I refer you to the bar graph on page 13, If you add the three areas, Nuclear, Hydro, Petroleum and natural gas, you get 48.6% of the power production for the united states, for all fuel sources not just coal. That seems like an awful lot of power that could be saved, as I said, *If we really wanted to.*

I have no idea how you can gain a sense of what we can save by looking at a chart that shows us how we produce energy.

Nuclear and Hydro are already nearly 100% savings by definition.

What are you, retarded? You think the billion-dollar costs of reactors and dams should somehow magically not be included in their business cases? You think they're "free?" Let's not even get into the problems with hydro, which include NIMBY, greatly increased evaporation, water table problems, downstream user disruption, vast areas of land made unusable, and the rest. You seem to have this fantasy-land notion that we can just throw hydro plants at our problem until it magically disappears.

Natural Gas and Petrol could be significantly reduced, the explination why is above in the previous post.

You didn't give any ways we could actually use less power; you are just trying to say that we should use hydro instead of fossil fuel. This really isn't a viable option in most places, and shows a deep misunderstanding of economics and environmental impact.

It seems all those sweaters would make 2/3, or 75% of an impact on the residential power catagory in the united states. hmmmmmm still sounds like enviro-babble warren?

Two-thirds is 66%. And you were the one insisting that wearing sweaters could cut residential energy costs in half, not me. I just said that was retarded, and your own evidence shows that it was, in fact, retarded.

industrial: 29%

residential: 36% commercial: 35% transportation 0.5%

And thus residential is only a third of our energy consumption; two thirds of it is business-related. Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. Perhaps my use of the term "industry" threw you off.

So we clearly see the majority of usage of power by the major source of where we get our power goes to, yes, YOU AND ME, and NOT to a factory.

No, a third of our energy goes to you and me. Two thirds of it goes to business (commerical + industrial), and a tiny amount goes to transportation. This is what I've been telling you the entire time. This is what your evidence illustrates.

- Warren

chroot

Feb4-06, 01:10 PM

I give a crap, becuase these are the major areas that we get our power from. I have already shown you the statistic for non coal based power consumption in the US, ~48%. It is 100% relevant, as it affects our total overall energy consumption.

I still don't see how this number is revelant to anything, as I wasn't discussing generation, but consumption. Good try, though, chap.

Nope, I wont. Becuase you said it was industrial that was the major sink of power, and I have shown you that it is not. Im not going to argue with you about this issue, because I have given you reports by the US government that clearly show you are wrong. Industry is not the driving force of our energy use in this country.

So you're instead going to sniggle over my use of the term "industry," meaning all business-related use? Business-related use accounts for two-thirds of our consumption. Residential use is only half as much. Good show. You're definitely the most effective debater around, cyrus.

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 01:15 PM

So you're instead going to sniggle over my use of the term "industry," meaning all business-related use?

You still do not understand what industry is, so again, I will give you the governments definition of industry, as opposed to commercial.

Industrial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of all facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining. Overall energy use in this sector is largely for process heat and cooling and powering machinery, with lesser amounts used for facility heating, air conditioning, and lighting. Fossil fuels are also used as raw material inputs to manufactured products.

Commercial. An energy-consuming sector that consists of service-providing facilities and equipment of nonmanufacturing businesses; Federal, State, and local governments; and other private and public organizations, such as religious, social, or fraternal groups. The commercial sector includes institutional living quarters. Common uses of energy associated with this sector include space heating, water heating, air conditioning, lighting, refrigeration, cooking and running a wide variety of other equipment.

It is clear that commercial means more office type work. That is an area that is much easier to in increase efficiency. So your argument about shutting down industry in this country simply holds no weight. You can reduce power in more than 60% of the overall areas without doing a single change in industry

Business-related use accounts for two-thirds of our consumption.

Again, no. Stop giving me inaccurate numbers. It is more akin to ~30%.

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 01:24 PM

What are you, retarded? You think the billion-dollar costs of reactors and dams should somehow magically not be included in their business cases? You think they're "free?" Let's not even get into the problems with hydro, which include NIMBY, greatly increased evaporation, water table problems, downstream user disruption, vast areas of land made unusable, and the rest. You seem to have this fantasy-land notion that we can just throw hydro plants at our problem until it magically disappears

Free, in the sense that we do not need fossil fuels to get power from those sources. Obviously not free as in no cost or pitfalls.

Two-thirds is 66%. And you were the one insisting that wearing sweaters could cut residential energy costs in half, not me. I just said that was retarded, and your own evidence shows that it was, in fact, retarded.

Again, I DID NOT SAY wearing sweaters would cut ANYTHING in half. You put, and still put those words in my mouth, STOP IT, PLEASE. And cut out the personal insults. I have not insulted you.

You didn't give any ways we could actually use less power; you are just trying to say that we should use hydro instead of fossil fuel. This really isn't a viable option in most places, and shows a deep misunderstanding of economics and environmental impact.

No, I did not say anything about putting up hydro-electric plants. You put that into my mouth as well. I said there is a large area that we could make a change, i.e. the commercial residential and transportation. Industrial would not have to be changed.

Now you are just throwing mud at me and not arguments worth debating.

I have shown and continue to show you that 60% is non industrial areas. These areas are the majority, and if we can reduce power use in these areas, we will take a major step in the right direction. The numbers speak for themselves. And I did not read one report, I have provided you with an annual report from every major power area in the US for the year 2004 (electricity, distilled and residual oils, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro). You have only provided me with information on global power rates that happen to include the US per capita, so what? That does not reflect the power use numbers by area or category. That information is misleading. The true data is in the reports I have provided. Perhaps you should read them.

I have no idea how you can gain a sense of what we can save by looking at a chart that shows us how we produce energy.

This shows me that you did not bother to look at what I gave you, as they were all power consumption rates, not power generation rates. Hence, my argument holds weight on solid grounds.

chroot

Feb4-06, 01:46 PM

You still do not understand what industry is, so again, I will give you the governments definition of industry, as opposed to commercial.

I know exactly what "industrial" means. I used the word "industry," by which I was referring to all business-related use.

Again, no. Stop giving me inaccurate numbers. It is more akin to ~30%.

So, let me get this straight -- "industrial use" includes "facilities and equipment used for producing, processing, or assembling goods. The industrial sector encompasses the following types of activity: manufacturing and mining." Yet you claim that industrial use is not actually business-related.

I ask you, do you have any equipment for the production, processing, or assembling of goods in your home? Do you conduct any manufacturing or mining in your home?

Residential use is about 30% of our total energy consumption. Almost all the rest is consumed by business. There is no argument possible here.

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 01:50 PM

Business, yes. Industrial business NO! Hence, my argument. So you STILL are not paying attention to a word I have said. I said INDUSTRIAL this hole time, never have I said business. I have been careful to keep industrial and commercial as two different entities. The same chagnes to your home that decrease power use applies to office type buildings. The technology can be used to benifit BOTH, but more than likely will NOT help industry.

For the 4th time now warren, industrial does NOT mean all buisness related use. Business includes industrial and commercial, the converse, industrial does not mean all types of business. Industrial is a subset of business.

chroot

Feb4-06, 01:52 PM

Free, in the sense that we do not need fossile fuels to get power from those sources. Obviously not free as in no cost or pitfalls.

Who cares if they're free of fossil fuels? We were never talking about the sort of energy production. We were talking about total energy consumption. Why are you so bent on changing the subject?

I have shown and continue to show you that 60% is non industrial areas.

I was using the word "industry" to include all business-related uses, which your reports split into two categories: industrial and commerical use. I was using the term "industry" to describe all business-related use, which accounts for 2/3 of our energy consumption.

Why do I continue to repeat myself, while you continue to use the same words over and over again?

Residential use is approximately 30% of our total worldwide energy consumption.

This shows me that you did not bother to look at what I gave you, as they were all power consumption rates, not power generation rates. Hence, my argument holds weight on solid grounds.

What argument, exactly? You keep changing your mind about what you're arguing. First, you argued that Americans are the most wasteful people of energy, and that the Japanese are better. Then I pointed out that both arguments were factually false. Now you're arguing that coal is about half our generation. So what? I don't care about any of that. You seem to be changing the topic of discussion because you desperately want to be right about something, yes? Charming.

- Warren

chroot

Feb4-06, 01:54 PM

Business, yes. Industrial business NO! Hence, my argument. So you STILL are not paying attention to a word I have said. I said INDUSTRIAL this hole time, never have I said business. I have been careful to keep industrial and commercial as two different entities. The same chagnes to your home that decrease power use applies to office type buildings. The technology can be used to benifit BOTH, but more than likely will NOT help industry.

The first reports I showed you did not, in fact, seperate industrial and commercial use. They used the term "industry" to refer to all business-related use, as I have done.

If all you're going to do is argue the definition of a word, this discussion is completely pointless. Do you even have an argument anymore?

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 01:55 PM

First, you argued that Americans are the most wasteful people of energy, and that the Japanese are better. Then I pointed out that both arguments were factually false

Ok, fine. I like the information you provided, and I have to agree with you on that issue. The evidence does not lie. However, I am showing YOU, that there is alot of area for improvement in this country, and its not 'enviro-babble' on my part. And that making claims that changing industry is the only way to make change in this country is simply FALSE.

chroot

Feb4-06, 01:56 PM

For the 4th time now warren, industrial does NOT mean all buisness related use. Business includes industrial and commercial, the converse, industrial does not mean business. Industrial is a subset of business.

I understand the concept. I used the word "industry." Again, why are you so hung up on the definition of a word? Different reports use the words differently. You have to use context to determine the intended meaning. This is an example of reading comprehension.

As I have said from the beginning, residential users are a small portion of the world's total energy consumption. There can be no argument about that statement, regardless of how you define "industry," because it is factually correct.

- Warren

chroot

Feb4-06, 01:59 PM

Ok, fine. I like the information you provided, and I have to agree with you on that issue. The evidence does not lie. However, I am showing YOU, that there is alot of area for improvement in this country, and its not 'enviro-babble' on my part.

No kidding -- there's a lot we can do! This I have never disagreed with you about. We're probably never going to cut our consumption in half without some enormous leap in technology (or an enormous cut in standard of living), but indeed there's quite a lot that can be done.

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 01:59 PM

Because your use of the word Industry, lumps industrial and commercial, which over estimates the power use by nearly DOUBLE. My reading comprehension is fine. I am using the proper use of the words, you are not.

As I have said from the beginning, residential users are a small portion of the world's total energy consumption.

They out use industrial, and nearly tie with commercial. How is that a small portion?

Lets just play with a number here. Lets say, for instance, we can make some cuts in power use. A modest 5% in industry, 20% in commercial, and 20% in residential. You are talking of nearly 45% TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION. That, sir, is MASSIVE!

chroot

Feb4-06, 02:02 PM

Because your use of the word Industry, lumps industrial and commercial, which over estimates the power use by nearly DOUBLE. My reading comprehension is fine. I am using the proper use of the words, you are not.

Residential users use 33% of the total. Business use accounts for about 66% of the total.

66% is double 33%. Correct?

- Warren

chroot

Feb4-06, 02:03 PM

Lets just play with a number here. Lets say, for instance, we can make some cuts in power use. A modest 5% in industry, 20% in commercial, and 20% in residential. You are talking of nearly 45% TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION.

Wow, 20 + 20 + 5 does equal 45! What a great argument!

Now how would we actually achieve those gains? You don't seem to ever advance any possible methods.

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 02:05 PM

This is human calculus. Numbers are rough. That post was utter nonsense. Back on point, notice how I used a modest 20% reduction in both commercial and residential. The reason is because changes in these areas are very applicable to eachother. They are complimentary. That is why you can NOT lump commercial and industrial. You have to group residential and commercial.

Now how would we actually achieve those gains? You don't seem to ever advance any possible methods.

That is the job of smart EE's like you to figure out. And It requires a real plan set forth by the president, not just a cheerleading speech about it on the state of the union every 6 months.

chroot

Feb4-06, 02:06 PM

This is human calculus. Numbers are rough. That post was utter nonsense. Back on point, notice how I used a modest 20% reduction in both commercial and residential. The reason is because changes in these areas are very applicable to eachother. They are complimentary. That is why you can NOT lump commercial and industrial. You have to group residential and commercial.

I don't care how you group it. You've provided no mechanisms by which we could save so much energy. Saying "20% is modest" is not really an argument.

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 02:10 PM

If we put our minds to it, we could do it warren. Just because you don’t have an answer now does not mean you can’t find one later. Is that your philosophy can’t think of a solution, so just give up all efforts and say it can’t be done?

vanesch

Feb4-06, 02:13 PM

This raises a new poll question: I see a lot of skepticism regarding global warming in these forums. Who among you pronuke folks do not believe that fossil fuel CO2 causes global warming?

Yes, I sometimes read Andre's posts, he seems to be an expert with scientific arguments against the relationship between fossil fuel consumption and global warming. But then, he seems to be pretty alone. As I'm no expert at all in the field, I would trust more the "consensus view" which is that there is a strong link. It's what's usually best when you can't judge for yourself: accept the consensus view in the field, over the "lone rider" view. But there is a more important reason: imagine that the consensus view is right (the arguments of Andre not withstanding). Wouldn't it be very stupid to continue the way we are, then ? Now, let's assume that Andre's right. Is it then such a big mistake to put fossil fuels aside and find other solutions, even if it wasn't necessary for the sake of global warming ?
I think that the potential danger of global warming being right, is far worse, than the potential disadvantage of having over-reacted and having shifted energy production to other areas. In any case, fossil fuels are a finite ressource, so sooner or later we'll have to tackle the issue.

My main reasons for leaving aside fossil fuels as soon as we can, are:
1) the potential danger of global warming
2) the political dependency and all the wars and conflicts that are related to this oil-pumping middle east
3) the fact that sooner or later, we'll run out of them
4) the fact that one should always diversify essential ressources

I think that the intermediate step of nuclear fission power is a good thing, but as I said, in the long run, we should look for other solutions, and surely make most of renewable sources. I don't see this as the one OR the OTHER. Re-devellopment of nuclear fission energy does not, in any way, put a brake on research and devellopment of renewable sources. I would even say: on the contrary. In fact, both are very complementary. Renewable sources are usually best distributed, relatively small scale systems, opening the possibility of very competitive market. Nuclear power is much more "centralized", compact, and "strategic". I don't see, for instance, what would be a problem with some nuclear over-capacity and a distributed grid of renewable sources. In the case of problems, we "push the handle" of the nukes to deal with it. In normal times, the renewable sources deliver the bulk. Nuclear fuel is very compact, and strategic reserves for years can be stored in a small building.

And if we could keep the fossil "fuels" rather as ressources for the chemical industry, instead of as energy generator, that's probably a wiser use of the finite stock of them.

chroot

Feb4-06, 02:17 PM

Is that your philosphy, cant think of a solution, so just give up all efforts and say it cant be done?

Not at all -- but I don't see any value in debating pie-in-the-sky figures.

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 02:23 PM

Not at all -- but I don't see any value in debating pie-in-the-sky figures.

I dont think 20% each for com and resid, is all that pie-in-the-sky. You want to be more conservative, fine. Lets use 10%. Thats still 25% overall reduction. 25% is not an insignificant step. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, warren.

People thought we would never go to space, we did. People thought the world was flat, it wasn't. People thought the sound barrier could not be broken, it could. People will say, they thought they could not solve the energy crisis, but they did.

selfAdjoint

Feb4-06, 04:10 PM

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 04:19 PM

One option would be to outsource even more of our manufacturing and go to a nearly 100% service economy (including overseas services to pay for our goods). I'll bet that would take at lest 20% out of the commercial sector since manufacturing uses lots more energy than service.

That would reduce a fraction of the power usage in the industrial, not the commercial sector. The commercial sector is blue\white collar jobs, as per government definition. Industrial is manufacturing jobs. Also, to move industry to another country would actually be worse, as other countries probably wont have as strict emissions controls. Its not an easy problem to solve. Having a large services enonomy is kind of dangerous. It is primary industry that brings money into a country. So you don't want to let all of it go away.

russ_watters

Feb4-06, 04:55 PM

Well, can we at least discuss options for a 20% across-the-board reduction in energy usage? One option would be to outsource even more of our manufacturing and go to a nearly 100% service economy (including overseas services to pay for our goods). I'll bet that would take at lest 20% out of the commercial sector since manufacturing uses lots more energy than service.

Any comments? Even in the short term, and even if that would be good for the economy to oursource that much of it, how does that help? 20% is not a significant fraction of the problem and its an amount that we'd make back up in 5 years or so anyway.

To counter the pollution problem, emissions need to be dropped - not by 20% - but by 99%. To end our dependence on foreign oil, we need to drop, not 20%, but 55% of our oil usage.

russ_watters

Feb4-06, 05:09 PM

Now how would we actually achieve those gains? You don't seem to ever advance any possible methods.

That is the job of smart EE's like you to figure out. Unfortunately, the laws of physics make it impossible for even the smartest EE to reduce our energy consumption by a significant amount without changing how we live. Ie... Lets just play with a number here. Lets say, for instance, we can make some cuts in power use. A modest 5% in industry, 20% in commercial, and 20% in residential. You are talking of nearly 45% TOTAL ENERGY REDUCTION. Actually, you're talking percentage points there, not percent of usage. You're talking cutting 20% from the 33% that residential uses right now. That's actually a 60% drop in energy usage for residential.

So how do we do that? Simple: eliminate all heating and air conditioning, since they are on the order of 75% of your energy usage. Is that a viable solution? No.

Is there any way to make heating and air conditioning 75% more efficient (guess of what is needed to accomplish a 60% drop in residential energy usage)? No. The typical residential gas heater is 85% efficient. It is possible to make them on the order of 95% efficient - dropping their consumption by 12%. With air conditioning, you have the same problem except that they are only on the order of 35% efficient. The laws of thermodynamics dictate that they can't get much more efficient. And electric heaters are, of course, already 100% efficient.

You can pick up a little with heat pumps, but as far as the thermodynamics is concerned, if you get twice as much heat out as energy in with a heat pump, you haven't helped yourself any if that energy in was created at 45% efficiency in a gas turbine generator. Burning it at 90% efficiency yields theh same net usage.

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 05:18 PM

Actually, you're talking percentage points there, not percent of usage. You're talking cutting 20% from the 33% that residential uses right now. That's actually a 60% drop in energy usage for residential.

Ah, I see what you mean. You are correct.

So how do we do that? Simple: eliminate all heating and air conditioning, since they are on the order of 75% of your energy usage. Is that a viable solution? No.

That is just because you think it is impossible to eliminate all heating and air conditioning. In fact, its not. Its called making a sacrifice. It wont kill you. As I said before, it is a necessity only for the very old and the very young. I realize doing that is a big pain in the butt for everyone, but thats the price you pay when you have no other options. You start to cut back to the bare necessities.

russ_watters

Feb4-06, 05:39 PM

The posts of mine above are why I consider nuclear to be the only viable solution in the near-term (by which I mean the next ~50 years) to these energy and pollution issues. If we just stop building coal plants and build nuclear plants instead, start transitioning to hydrogen for mobile use, with maybe a 30% increase in energy costs we could be pretty much off fossil fuel in 20 years.

One caveat about coal - coal is plentiful and cheap and because of that it is the primary obstacle to change in our energy usage. "Clean coal" is a smokescreen (pun intended). It is certainly possible to make coal "clean", but what is meant by that? Coal has impurities and releases all sorts of nastyness (including, ironically, uranium) into the atmosphere when it is burned. There are ways to stop that, including preheating the coal to drive off methane and then burning the methane. Methane is what a stove uses and is what people think of when they think of a "clean" fossil fuel. But before anyone gets excited - methane is still a fossil fuel and its primary combustion product is still carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas. So while clean coal would help - it would reduce the number of people who die from air pollution, eliminate smog, etc., it would't fix that bigger problem of global warming.

russ_watters

Feb4-06, 05:52 PM

That is just because you think it is impossible to eliminate all heating and air conditioning. In fact, its not. Its called making a sacrifice. I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it wasn't viable (that subtlety has been a problem in this thread several times....). Just being possible is not good enough. It needs to be viable and it is not viable.

The government could, of course, outlaw heating and air conditioning. But that doesn't mean its a good idea. And it doesn't mean the public would go along with it. It wont kill you. As I said before, it is a necessity only for the very old and the very young. I realize doing that is a big pain in the butt for everyone, but thats the price you pay when you have no other options. You start to cut back to the bare necessities. Perhaps you think that is an acceptable sacrifice, but I don't and I suspect that a high fraction of the population would consider that unacceptable as well. That and the fact that it would utterly destroy the economy are what make it not viable.

People have had heat for thousands of years and many people most certainly would die without it. That part, anyway, stretches the limit of "possible", but sure, we could do it: Large fractions of the US (not to mention the world) would be simply uninhabitable in the winter without it. We'd need to abandon the northern half of the US in the winter.

Air conditioning is one of the things that makes the modern world the modern world. Eliminate that and we drop back a century. At home it is largely a comfort, but commercially, our economy could not function in its present form without air conditioning. Computers, or electronics of any kind? No - they require air conditioning. We'd have to stop using pretty much everything electronic (which, I guess, would just leave lighting, dropping our energy usage by 90%).

I think I asked you before if you are a "dark-ages environmentalist" and didn't get a response. It would appear that you are. You may consider such sacrifices to be acceptable, but that puts you in a very tiny fringe. Part of what has made the far fringe of environmentalism so impotent is the fact that their goals aren't viable. The US is a free country and the public just won't accept such radical ideas - such a radical departure from what the modern world is.

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 06:00 PM

That and the fact that it would utterly destroy the economy are what make it not viable.

That is why you would have to phase it out.

People have had heat for hundreds of years and many people most certainly would die without it.

Ok, fair. Then you limit the total heat output. Make it so that the amount of heating you can get in your home is tolerable. This is one option to reduce heating usage. So your house wont be a warm sunny day in mid january, too bad so sad. Its the price you have to pay if you want to cut back on our power use.

Computers, or electronics of any kind? No - they require air conditioning.

My computer does not have an A/C unit. Does yours? Does any one else's?

For large networks and mainfrains, of course you will need it. But thats not going to be in every house in the United States.

I think I asked you before if you are a "dark-ages environmentalist" and didn't get a response. It would appear that you are. You may consider such sacrifices to be acceptable, but that puts you in a very tiny fringe.

For the second time, no I am not. I am saying that if you want to reduce the amount of power we use, you will have to make some sacrifices. That does not make me a 'dark ages environmentalist.' Its called there is simply no other alternative. If you want to reduce the power usage, you have to make cuts somewhere. Do you know of any places that we can make cuts, because I would like to know?

russ_watters

Feb4-06, 06:12 PM

That is why you would have to phase it out. Huh? How do you phase out heat? And what would replace the economics of HVAC? These things account for a significant fraction of our economic output - they'd need to be replaced with something else. Ok, fair. Then you limit the total heat output. Make it so that the amount of heating you can get in your home is tolerable. This is one option to reduce heating usage. So your house wont be a warm sunny day in mid january. Its the price you have to pay. Now you're starting to be reasonable, but you're not seeing the flaw in your logic: the amount of heat required is proportional to temperature difference. If you live in a place where the average winter temperature is 30F and you drop your thermostat from 70 to 50, you've dropped your heating usage by 50%. Few people would find that acceptable and that isn't enough to meet your goal. And what if you live in Maine...? My computer does not have an A/C unit. Does yours? Does any one else's? Try running it outside on a hot summer day and see what happens. Most are good up to around 85 F before you start running into major problems. For large networks and mainfraims, of course you will need it. But thats not going to be in every house in the United States. You could probably redesign personal computers to allow them to run at an ambient temp of 90+F, but it would require a reduction in their functionality. Commercially, I think you underestimate how much of an effect computers have: most office buildings have to get cooling even in the winter because of their computers. For the second time, no I am not. I am saying that if you want to reduce the amount of power we use, you will have to make some sacrifices. That does not make me a 'dark ages environmentalist.' The sacrifices you are talking about would drop us back so far it is difficult to classify you any other way. Simply put, the sacrifices you are talking about require giving up a lof of what we consider modern life. That's what I call "dark ages environmentalism". Its called there is simply no other alternative. If you want to reduce the power usage, you have to make cuts somewhere. Do you know of any places that we can make cuts, because I would like to know? I didn't propose cutting power usage, you did. I'm saying that we can't cut power usage without irreparable damage to our economy and modern life. The problems of pollution and foreign oil dependence can be overcome by changing the way we generate power - they don't require decreasing our power usage.

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 06:22 PM

Huh? How do you phase out heat? And what would replace the economics of HVAC? These things account for a significant fraction of our economic output - they'd need to be replaced with something else.

No, phase out the use of air-conditioning. You say it is significant, but I am curious as to how significant it is. Can you provide a statistic for that?
They would have to be replaced, but again thats the price you have to pay.

Now you're starting to be reasonable, but you're not seeing the flaw in your logic: the amount of heat required is proportional to temperature difference. If you live in a place where the average winter temperature is 30F and you drop your thermostat from 70 to 50, you've dropped your heating usage by 50%. Few people would find that acceptable and that isn't enough to meet your goal. And what if you live in Maine...?

Might not meet the goal, but it will take a step in the direction of the overall goal none the less.

You could probably redesign personal computers to allow them to run at an ambient temp of 90+F, but it would require a reduction in their functionality. Commercially, I think you underestimate how much of an effect computers have: most office buildings have to get cooling even in the winter because of their computers.

Then you cool the individual computers themselves, not the entire office building.

I didn't propose cutting power usage, you did. I'm saying that we can't cut power usage without irreparable damage to our economy and modern life. The problems of pollution and foreign oil dependence can be overcome by changing the way we generate power - they don't require decreasing our power usage.

Don't get me wrong. If we can maintain our way of life, and find better ways to get power while reducing the effects on the environment, GREAT! But I find this very hard to believe, because when most of the world gets out of 3rd world status, we will have a major energy crisis on our hands. Eventually, cuts will be inevitable. (Unless we get some technologies that can supply the increased demands within that time frame, which is debatable)

Cyrus

Feb4-06, 07:35 PM

Russ, I cant find any information on the impact HVAC has on the total US economy. I have tried and tried. Can you find me anything? The fact that it is so hard to find leads me to believe that it is probably not a major economic sector.

Cyrus

Feb5-06, 02:20 AM

All this talk about savings and numbers has lead me to wonder how much savings would actually occur in totality by playing around with savings in different areas. First, I looked at the different groupings of the various energy sectors. These sectors include: Nuclear: 20.7%, Hydro 6.7%, Natural Gas 16.5%, Petrol and Others 4.7%, Coal 51.4%. These groupings are for the net generation of electricity only.

I will try to use what I feel are modest and reasonable numbers. Lets say we can improve nuclear by 5% (we find some ways to be a little more efficient). Lets say hydro is ~2% (Maybe we put in more efficient generators), Lets say Natural Gas ~5%, Petrol and Others, ~3%, Coal lets say ~4%. So what would be our overall savings just for the net electricity?

The new percentages would be: Nuclear: 19.665%, Hydro 6.566%, Natural Gas 15.675%, Petrol and Others 4.559%, Coal 49.344%

That gives a new total of 94.984%. So in electricity alone, we have skimmed off ~4.191% (Not too bad)

Keep in mind that this 4.191% increase is just from improving manufacturing of the electricity by doing whatever we can, no matter the cost.

Now, we also know that the total use of power is grouped into three major sectors, residential, industrial and commercial. The percentages are: Residential 36%, Industrial 29%, and Commercial 35%. So let’s assume we use energy saving devices, low power white LED lighting, and anything else one could think of. This would apply to both Commercial and Residential electrical power usage. So, that should be compounded to the 4.191% total power savings we got just from trying to improve how we make the power. So this means that I would originally have 100% power used from the electric source. From my savings, I now have 95.809 as my net total electricity, 36% of which comes from Residential, 35% commercial, and 29% industrial.

Let’s further say that the technology to save power in residential and commercial will be roughly the same. However, commercial uses power on a 24-7 basis, whereas residential has peak hours. So let’s just assume that every 1 saving in residential is going to be 1.5 times the amount in commercial. Let’s say residential saves, 3% all together. That means commercial will save around 6%. Let’s leave industrial alone to make warren happy. So this means the new total power use will be: Residential: 34.92%, Commercial: 32.9%, and Industrial 29%. That means the net difference in savings will be (100-91) = ~3.18%.

So that means we save another 3.18% on top of the 95.809% we saved when making the power. So now we are down to 92.629%. By doing so little, we have already chopped down the net electrical power consumption by 7.371%. (Now were getting some where)

Now, just for the hell of it, let’s say we switch over to renewable sources. Let’s say we exploit wind farms, as warren seems to like, and get perhaps 2% of the total power from wind farms for the U.S. Also, lets say we use have some sort of solar-oil power station, where the sun heats the oil in a tube via reflectors, and gives us 0.5% total US power. Also, let’s say we can use geothermal sources and get another 0.5% power production from that. That means we can further reduce another 3% from the generation of power. Recalculating the values gives a net savings in the end of: 10.371% in terms of electricity.

Furthermore, we know that out of all the natural gas consumption, 25% goes to electrical production, 25% to residential, 16% to commercial, and 34% industrial. We agreed to leave industrial alone, so well do just that. So let’s reduce residential and commercial by 5%, and we will stick with the 5% reduction we used earlier in electrical. That means additional savings of 3.3% for all natural gas usage in the US, not just for electricity.

What about oil. That is another big component of our dependence on energy. Well, only 1.3% of our distillate oil goes to making electricity. In fact the percentages are:

Residential: 10.7%
Commercial: 5.4%
Industrial: 3.7%
Oil Company: 0.8%
Farm: 5.1%
Electric Power: 1.3%
Railroad: 4.9%
Vessel Bunkering: 3.4%
On-Highway: 59.6%
Military: 0.6%
Off-Highway: 4.4%
Other: 0.0%

Ok, so lets impose regulations in parenthesis, and their associated new percentages:

Residential (6%): 10.058%
Commercial (6%): 5.076%
Industrial (0% I left it alone): 3.7%
Oil Company (1%): 0.736%
Farm (1%): 5.049%
Electric Power (3%): 1.261%
Railroad (1%): 4.851%
Vessel Bunkering (1%): 3.366%
On-Highway (Lets say 20%, this would be tough, but not unrealistic to achieve): 47.68%
Military (0%, well leave them alone): 0.6%
Off-Highway (5%): 4.18%
Other: 0.0%

Total of Distilled Savings: 13.443%. That is allot of savings for not asking too much.

This means we save ~10.371% in electricity production, and ~13.443% in distillate oil consumption.

So lets try not to be so dismissive about making changes that clearly would NOT destroy our economy or destroy our industry. It is very possible to make great strides in efficiency, *if we want to*. I was very moderate in how much savings I imposed. If you increase them, you will get even better results. The only area I was critical was in on-highway consumption by 20% because we already have the ability right now to make our cars ALLOT more fuel efficient. It just amounts to taking cars that average 18mph highway and turning them into 21.6mph on high way. Hell, my car already gets 24-mph city, and its a 4 door accord not a tiny pinto. So there is no reason why that cant be done.

As I alluded to earlier, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Art

Feb5-06, 08:37 AM

One caveat about coal - coal is plentiful and cheap and because of that it is the primary obstacle to change in our energy usage. "Clean coal" is a smokescreen (pun intended). It is certainly possible to make coal "clean", but what is meant by that? Coal has impurities and releases all sorts of nastyness (including, ironically, uranium) into the atmosphere when it is burned.The reason it is called 'clean coal' is because it is not burned!!! It is gassified by heating to 2000 F which breaks it down into it's constituent chemical building blocks. These are then distillated and so what were harmful emmissions become useful by-products such as anhydrous ammonia and ammonium sulfate for use as agricultural fertilisers, phenol for use in manufacturing wood resins and naphtha and liquid nitrogen which have many uses.
The CO2 produced is captured and as I outlined in an earlier post can be used to help extend the useful life of oil wells or simply sequestered underground.
The net result is there are zero emmissions from a plentiful raw material source with none of the longterm environmental / health risks associated with nuclear power.

With regard to the US reducing it's usage of power one of the most obvious ways to do this without changing a single thing in how power is currently used is by converting the supply system to use HTS cables.

The amount of power currently lost through electrical resistance in the transmission grid is immense. This loss could be eliminated almost entirely using technology already available and proven. In fact it has been undergoing small scale field trials for some years now in several US states without any problems. Other advantages are it greatly reduces the amount of cabling needed to carry power as area for area HTS wire will carry >150 times the amount of current existing wires carry.

Another interesting area under development is HTS motors, prototype 36.5 MW (47,000 HP) ship propulsion motors have been produced for the US navy weighing 1/3 and taking up 1/2 the space of conventional motors of the same rating. Many ships have already transitioned to electrical propulsion systems making the next step to HTS systems far simpler. It is estimated that if a cruise ship used a HTS propulsion system it would save ~$100,000 a year on fuel.

Lisa!

Feb5-06, 09:23 AM

I voted yes but I think nukes should be phased out.

chroot

Feb5-06, 12:33 PM

That gives a new total of 94.984%. So in electricity alone, we have skimmed off ~4.191% (Not too bad)
Since the US energy demand increases by, say, 1.5% annually, we'll be back to the same demand in about 3 years, yet will have spent billions of dollars in a futile attempt to improve efficiency by this insignificant amount.

- Warren

chroot

Feb5-06, 12:36 PM

It is very possible to make great strides in efficiency, *if we want to*.
You sure have added up lots of numbers, but you still haven't provided even a single technique by which such savings could be made -- other than wearing sweaters in the winter, of course.

- Warren

Cyrus

Feb5-06, 12:45 PM

Actually, I just showed you that it is about 13% for oil. That is a good amount of oil that can be saved. Which means less dependence on foreign sources. Also, If we can delay our usage increase by 3 years (for electricity), that’s 3 years of less increase in pollution. That sounds better than 3 years of rising emissions. If you factor in increases in renewable sources, thats about 10 years. A few billion is not allot of money. We spent that much to study where to make a hole in a mountain to put our nuclear waste, as Russ has pointed out. They did not even dig a hole with that money. So we do have the money around. Might as well put it to better use.

other than wearing sweaters in the winter, of course.

I made no mention of eliminating HVAC in that calculation warren. Thanks for yet another cheap shot, real classy.

TheStatutoryApe

Feb5-06, 09:31 PM

Cyrus I think that there's a bit of a conflict with trying to decrease energy usage. Yearly we want to make sure that more and more people have clean water, food, clothes, shelter, heat/air, medical care, education, transportation, jobs, ect ect... in essence if we try to meet these goals more people are going to be using more energy yearly. I'm sure that these are goals you would whole heartedly endorse and would like to see met on a larger percentage yearly. I was on the same track of considering reducing energy usage until I realize this. After that reealization it seemed that the primary focus should really be harnessing more energy for less overall cost ("overall" to include longterm issues of global warming pollution ect.). Energy saving measures are definitely a good idea but I think in the long run with all issues considered it's really just a way of reducing the inflation of energy use which will continue to inflate regardless as already mentioned by Chroot and Russ.

On getting industry and commercial to reduce energy expenditures I think that it's not a very big issue there. Cost in energy is factored into cost of business and any good business man should be working on keeping his business as cost efficient as possible. I am sure though that there are businesses that are reluctant to make the investment in more efficient energy consumption. Most likely they just don't realize how they can benefit. Any good company that provides such technologies though should be hitting up any one they can with literature on the subject. Tax breaks for companies that institute major energy saving plans would be a good incentive for them to get it done and tax breaks for companies that provide said services would also be good. What do you think?

russ_watters

Feb5-06, 10:52 PM

No, phase out the use of air-conditioning. You say it is significant, but I am curious as to how significant it is. Can you provide a statistic for that? HVAC is roughly half of a building's energy usage (commercial or industrial). Energy is roughly $1.5 trillion or 15% of the US GDP (based on 100 quadrillion btu of annual usage at 5 cents per kwh). Someone check my math.

http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1.html
http://zone.ni.com/devzone/conceptd.nsf/webmain/6E14CD46F2DBE74586256E2100798272?opendocument&node=200768_US

It is also important to remember that cutting energy is a double-hit to the economy and cutting hvac makes it a triple-hit: Cutting energy usage hurts the energy industry and whatever industry you are cutting it from: cutting it from HVAC hurts the HVAC industry, and cutting HVAC hurts every industry that uses HVAC. Ie, buying a house without HVAC will cost less than buying a house with it, hurting the construction industry, construction hardware industry, finance industry, etc. They would have to be replaced, but again thats the price you have to pay. Just saying that doesn't tell us anything at all about how you'd go about doing it or what effect it would have. Might not meet the goal, but it will take a step in the direction of the overall goal none the less. In my opinion, such baby-steps are counterproductive because they waste time. While we take baby-steps, the situtaion just keeps getting worse. Then you cool the individual computers themselves, not the entire office building. It works out largely the same either way. In offices, the computers are responsible for most of the HVAC anyway. Whether you pipe the air conditioning to the computer itself or just to the room, the heat from the computer is still going back to the hvac unit. Don't get me wrong. If we can maintain our way of life, and find better ways to get power while reducing the effects on the environment, GREAT! But I find this very hard to believe, because when most of the world gets out of 3rd world status, we will have a major energy crisis on our hands. Eventually, cuts will be inevitable. (Unless we get some technologies that can supply the increased demands within that time frame, which is debatable) We already have a technology that works just fine. It's the subject of this thread.

russ_watters

Feb5-06, 11:04 PM

The reason it is called 'clean coal' is because it is not burned!!! People may be calling it different things, then: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/ "Clean coal technology" describes a new generation of energy processes that sharply reduce air emissions and other pollutants compared to older coal-burning systems....

Initially, the demonstration portion of the program, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, is providing government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the President's Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce greenhouse gases from coal plants by boosting the efficiency at which they convert coal to electricity or other energy forms. It is gassified by heating to 2000 F which breaks it down into it's constituent chemical building blocks. These are then distillated and so what were harmful emmissions become useful by-products such as anhydrous ammonia and ammonium sulfate for use as agricultural fertilisers, phenol for use in manufacturing wood resins and naphtha and liquid nitrogen which have many uses.
The CO2 produced is captured and as I outlined in an earlier post can be used to help extend the useful life of oil wells or simply sequestered underground.
The net result is there are zero emmissions from a plentiful raw material source with none of the longterm environmental / health risks associated with nuclear power. That technology is not off the drawing-board yet, and I think in the near-term we need to use technology that has already proven itself to be commercially viable. We could be building nuclear power plants now and in just a few years make a significant dent in our fossil-fuel dependence. Not these single-digit differences - in a couple of decades we could all but eliminate fossil fuel energy production. With regard to the US reducing it's usage of power one of the most obvious ways to do this without changing a single thing in how power is currently used is by converting the supply system to use HTS cables.

The amount of power currently lost through electrical resistance in the transmission grid is immense. Compared to the magnitude of the problems we're talking about, I don't consider 7.5% to be "immense" - I don't even consider it worth talking about. Coal power alone is currently half of our electricity generation.
Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [1], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [2]
http://www.answers.com/topic/electric-power-transmission
Another interesting area under development is HTS motors, prototype 36.5 MW (47,000 HP) ship propulsion motors have been produced for the US navy weighing 1/3 and taking up 1/2 the space of conventional motors of the same rating. Many ships have already transitioned to electrical propulsion systems making the next step to HTS systems far simpler. It is estimated that if a cruise ship used a HTS propulsion system it would save ~$100,000 a year on fuel. Again, the numbers we're talking about are miniscule (I'm skeptical of that $100,000 a year savings, but anyway...). Such motors have been demonstrated at 97.2% efficient whereas conventional electric motors are up to 96.8% efficiency - a difference of less than 1%.

http://www.psnh.com/Business/SmallBusiness/Motor.asp
http://www.amsuper.com/products/motorsGenerators/104213395711.cfm

Oh, and where does the electricity come from to power such motors? From an oil-fired gas-turbine engine that could have been connected directly to the screws anyway.

Cyrus

Feb5-06, 11:08 PM

We already have a technology that works just fine. It's the subject of this thread.

Well, lets assume the world is peaceful. There is no disputes, we are all one big global community. We all use nuclear power, and we have eliminted all needs on fossil fuels. What would be the amount of nuclear waste produced by these production plants? Also, where would you propose we put all that nuclear material?

russ_watters

Feb5-06, 11:13 PM

russ_watters

Feb5-06, 11:14 PM

Well, lets assume the world is peaceful. There is no disputes, we are all one big global community. We all use nuclear power, and we have eliminted all needs on fossil fuels. What would be the amount of nuclear waste produced by these production plants? Also, where would you propose we put all that nuclear material? All that nuclear waste could still fit inside a single football stadium and we could put it just about anywhere. But why even bother? As I said before, we could even leave it where it is now, not hurting anyone or anything.

russ_watters

Feb5-06, 11:49 PM

Consider the waste data a little further: http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm A 1000 MWe light water reactor uses about 25 tonnes of enriched uranium a year, requiring the mining of some 50,000 tonnes of uranium ore. By comparison, a 1000 MWe coal-fired power station requires the mining, transportation, storage and burning of about 3.2 million tonnes of black coal per year. This creates around 7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide not to mention sulfur dioxide, depending on the particular coal. Solid wastes from a coal-fired power station can be substantial and cause environmental and health damage.

Art

Feb6-06, 08:24 AM

People may be calling it different things, then: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/ That technology is not off the drawing-board yet, and I think in the near-term we need to use technology that has already proven itself to be commercially viable.Your information is a couple of decades out of date - see Dakota Gasification Company's Great Plains Synfuels Plant. http://www.dakotagas.com/ BTW The process was first developed and used by the Germans during WW2 to provide fuel for the luftwaffe.
We could be building nuclear power plants now and in just a few years make a significant dent in our fossil-fuel dependence.We could be building Clean Coal Plants now and reduce harmful emmissions to zero without the headache of disposing of nuclear waste or incurring the high costs >$300 m each in decommissioning the plants at the the end of their useful life. http://www.nrc.gov.edgesuite.net/failover.html Apart from disposing of the spent fuel remember when the plant is decommissioned much of the construction material is also irradiated and needs to be disposed of safely.

In the US, 10 defunct nuclear plants have been decontaminated (the Decon method) whilst 14 have taken the safe store (Safstor) approach whereby they are mothballed to avoid incurring the costs associated with their demolition. I believe the plan is to leave them that way for 50 - 60 years. The 3rd option for handling defunt nuclear power plants is entombment which as the name suggests consists of enclosing the structure in some material such as concrete. This is used by some countries. Neither Safstor nor entombment are very nice legacies to hand down to your grandchildren.

Some people here have spoken about reprocessing fuel to extend the life of the nuclear era but the decommissioning costs involved in cleaning up reprocessing sites is huge. The French Atomic Energy Commission is decommissioning the UP1 reprocessing plant at Marcoule. Progressive decontamination and dismantling of the plant and waste treatment will span 40 years and cost some $6.5 billion :bugeye: , nearly half of this for treatment of the wastes stored on the site.in a couple of decades we could all but eliminate fossil fuel energy production.If fossil fuel is the most environmentally friendly, cost effective way to go why would we want to eliminate it? Especially as somebody here already pointed out there is only enough nuclear fuel for 30 years anyway and as I already pointed out enough coal to last 300 years, with the added advantage the resource is yours and so doesn't incur the problems involved in achieving a stable energy supply from politically unstable regions of the planetCompared to the magnitude of the problems we're talking about, I don't consider 7.5% to be "immense" - I don't even consider it worth talking about.7 1/2% equates to something like 12 power stations. That sounds worth talking about to me. But then again you seem so keen to push the notion that anybody advocating saving power is a 'dark age environmentalist' I can see why you are so dismissive of substantial savings with no loss in standard of living. Coal power alone is currently half of our electricity generation.Precisely so the infrastructure is already in place to support clean coal power plants.

http://www.answers.com/topic/electric-power-transmission Again, the numbers we're talking about are miniscule (I'm skeptical of that $100,000 a year savings, but anyway...). Such motors have been demonstrated at 97.2% efficient whereas conventional electric motors are up to 96.8% efficiency - a difference of less than 1%. HTS motors are far more efficient than conventional motors at low speed. The $100,000 figure I quoted was the lowest end of the scale. HTS Propulsion Systems Operate Equally Efficiently at any Speed As noted earlier, HTS propulsion systems have the additional advantage of being able to operate just as efficiently down to low speeds, which is especially important for cruise ships, coastal merchant ships and warships that spend much of their time operating at partial loads. Overall, the fuel savings from efficiency gains of HTS machines depend on the operating scenario but preliminary calculations suggest that fuel savings from $100,000 to $500,000 per ship per year can be expected for many ship types. http://www.amsuper.com/products/library/Maritime_Reporter_final3_sk1_73002_final.pdf (you'll note this is from the source you quoted)

Oh, and where does the electricity come from to power such motors? From an oil-fired gas-turbine engine that could have been connected directly to the screws anyway.It seems only diesal direct drive ships are built, for which I am sure there must be good technical reasons but you'll be pleased to know they are also working on HTS generators too.