YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis


by russ_watters
Tags: crisis, energy
HempForPres
HempForPres is offline
#361
Jun1-09, 06:57 PM
P: 3
I have to disagree with you on the topic of nuclear energy. In the process of finding, digging up, refining, delivering and then disposing of the waste, we use so much carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) that it takes fully 20 years of running to make up for it before you produce a single watt of "clean" power. Furthermore, there is only a finite amount of uranium in the earth, which means we'll hit "peak uranium" very fast.

Then comes the most important question: where do we store the spent uranium?? Spent uranium is still radioactive for over 20,000 years. If the pyramids were used to store waste back in the days of the Pharoahs of Egypt, we'd still to this day be guarding them, and have another 10,000 years left of having to send our military to guard it from terrorists.

Do you want trucks filled to the brim with radioactive material driving next to you on the highway, or past your children's schools? What if a terrorist lowjacked a rig and drove it into a school?!

What if a terrorist flies a plane into the radioactive waste pools that currently hold our waste? Did you know that we store this horribly dangerous stuff in open pools that have only a chain link fence surrounding them?

This is all very dangerous stuff, and we need to realize that if we spill this into an area of pristine wilderness, we cannot undo it. We cannot clean up Uranium water. The area will be ruined forever. The harm to the genetic makeup of the animals and people in the area would be horrible.

Imagine 100 million gallons of Uranium water suddenly flooding into the Mississippi River... how many hundreds of thousands... millions.... of people would get sick and die?

Is it worth it?

If nuclear is so safe, why won't ANY insurance company cover them? Not one. Guess who insures these behemoths of destruction? The U.S. Government. That's right, your and my tax dollars.

Is nuclear cheap? On an average of $20 Billion dollars for a nuclear plant and the amount of time it takes to build, a nuclear plant is extremely expensive. Give me $20 Billion dollars and I can build a dozen Solar Thermal Plants, produce more electricity and then have money left over to take an early retirement.

So think twice before you give the thumbs up to nuclear. It's not worth the price, it's not worth the pollution, it's not worth the risk.

Go green!

http://www.bluechipearth.com - A Green Industry Future Forum. Come join the conversation!
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#362
Jun2-09, 10:09 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by HempForPres View Post
I have to disagree with you on the topic of nuclear energy. In the process of finding, digging up, refining, delivering and then disposing of the waste, we use so much carbon-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) that it takes fully 20 years of running to make up for it before you produce a single watt of "clean" power. Furthermore, there is only a finite amount of uranium in the earth, which means we'll hit "peak uranium" very fast....
Go green!

http://www.bluechipearth.com - A Green Industry Future Forum. Come join the conversation!
Welcome to PF HempForPres.

You'll find that many of these issues have been discussed in the Nuclear Engineering forum, in particular the sticky post references some hard facts that should clear up some of these misconceptions. See to start:

Effects/risks of waste:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...1&postcount=25
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...&postcount=103

Comparisons to other sources of pollution:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...7&postcount=52

Availability of nuclear fuel:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...0&postcount=99
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...&postcount=110

I agree with you that nuclear power is expensive in the US, but I believe that is due to US government policy that allows and encourages endless litigation, etc, and is not intrinsic to nuclear power technology.

The green advocacy links would be more appropriately posted elsewhere, not in the science/engineering forums.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...&postcount=102
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#363
Jun2-09, 08:31 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
The Economist just hosted one of its online debates between a biofueled vehicle and an electric vehicle advocate titled:
This house believes that biofuels, not electricity, will power the car of the future.
in whiche the EV advocate heavily carried the day.
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/321

This comes right on top of the paper [1] in Science this month arguing that it is more efficient to burn biofuels to make electricity rather than directly in a vehicle. Taken together I'd say that EV's definitely have the advantage in momentum, making ethanol cars just a stepping stone.

[1] Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol, JE Cambell, DB Lobell, CB Field. Vol 324, no 5930, pp 1055-1057.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#364
Jun3-09, 01:12 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
... Tesla and other EVs use about 17kWh/100km at about $600/kWh of Li-Ion battery capacity that should last 100k miles. Better Place's exchange stations must maintain some battery stock, assume 30% stock beyond the batteries on the road. The battery cost per vehicle is then: 161km x 17kwh/100km x 1.3 x $600/kWh-LiIon = $21.2k/vehicle or $0.21/mile. The electric energy cost at $0.09/kWh is $0.025/mile. Total battery and energy cost: $0.23 / mile. ...
The battery swap CEO, Agassi, did an interview with Wired a couple months ago. At 11:15 he says his battery total lifetime cost with no help from subsidies, nothing, is $0.04 to $0.05 / mile! With the assumptions I made above, 100 mi range, 100000 mile battery lifetime, that means he's claiming he can buy Li-Ion batteries at $141/kWh i.e. $0.05 x 100,000 mi/vehicle-battery x (100km/17kWh/vehicle-battery) / 161 km x (1/1.3). I'm skeptical, as that's more than 3x better than Li-Ion prices I see elsewhere. Part of that might be cost of scale, as he also states his battery demand would be 5x total current world wide Li-ion battery supply. But, if he can deliver, given gasoline costs today are $0.09/mi and can only go up over the long term while batteries are sure to get cheaper, then EV's are bound to take off fast.
vanesch
vanesch is offline
#365
Jun3-09, 01:53 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,238
Quote Quote by HempForPres View Post
I have to disagree with you on the topic of nuclear energy.

[ ... ]


So think twice before you give the thumbs up to nuclear. It's not worth the price, it's not worth the pollution, it's not worth the risk.

Go green!

http://www.bluechipearth.com - A Green Industry Future Forum. Come join the conversation!
You know, I've been in a long discussion in my country with people who think like you. I've even written a book about it (but it is in Dutch). Probably you're somebody honest and believe what you say, but there is not much rationality in it. Here at PF we try to stick to a more rational and scientifically inspired discourse, not to an appeal to emotion ("do you want a terrorist to high-jack a truck of radioactive waste and run it in your kid's school ?"). These are very transparant argument tricks which won't work with most of the public on PF.

I won't say that there aren't any problems with nuclear energy, but when you compare the numbers, and not the emotional statements, then the picture changes.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#366
Jun3-09, 08:45 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
You know, I've been in a long discussion in my country with people who think like you. ...
Long? You have a great deal of patience vanesch.
drewk79
drewk79 is offline
#367
Jun3-09, 03:01 PM
P: 16
Eventually we will have to use renewable resources to power the planet. All others (nuclear, fossil fuels etc.) will run out.

Large solar and wind plants will be needed to power the more dense population areas.

In the areas where people live in single family homes though these people could obviously live on energy they harness on their property.

going nuclear may be the easiest thing to do but is it the best.

I guess eventually we will all be dead so maybe nuclear will last til then
vanesch
vanesch is offline
#368
Jun4-09, 12:17 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,238
Quote Quote by drewk79 View Post
Eventually we will have to use renewable resources to power the planet. All others (nuclear, fossil fuels etc.) will run out.
A friend of mine once had a stupid car accident. I was in the car (nothing serious, but the car was damaged) It happened as follows: there was a very long, straight road with many successive crossings, and at each crossing, there were traffic lights. He was fixing the traffic light "at the horizon", some 6 or 7 crossings further, and it was green. But at the nearest crossing, the light was red and he didn't see it, because he stared at the remote traffic light, and BONK.

The Romans didn't have to solve our energy problems. People from the 18th century didn't make plans (or relevant plans) for our current energy provision.

Let's solve things for the next few decades, let's maybe try to think 50 years ahead. And beyond that, anybody's guess is good enough, I'd say. It is not because nuclear might meet a fuel problem in 5000 years or so, that we can't use it to solve a problem in the coming 50 years, no ? 200 years from now, society will be different, technology will be different, the problems will be different, and our thinking about that now is going to be utterly irrelevant.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#369
Jun4-09, 12:28 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
A friend of mine once had a stupid car accident. I was in the car (nothing serious, but the car was damaged) It happened as follows: there was a very long, straight road with many successive crossings, and at each crossing, there were traffic lights. He was fixing the traffic light "at the horizon", some 6 or 7 crossings further, and it was green. But at the nearest crossing, the light was red and he didn't see it, because he stared at the remote traffic light, and BONK.

The Romans didn't have to solve our energy problems. People from the 18th century didn't make plans (or relevant plans) for our current energy provision.

Let's solve things for the next few decades, let's maybe try to think 50 years ahead. And beyond that, anybody's guess is good enough, I'd say. It is not because nuclear might meet a fuel problem in 5000 years or so, that we can't use it to solve a problem in the coming 50 years, no ? 200 years from now, society will be different, technology will be different, the problems will be different, and our thinking about that now is going to be utterly irrelevant.
Tons and tons of common sense in this post.
drewk79
drewk79 is offline
#370
Jun4-09, 04:33 PM
P: 16
I recently read a great book by David Mackay. Energy without the hot air.http://www.withouthotair.com/

He says if we wanted to stop using fossil fuels we would need to build 5 times the current level of nuclear plants plus cover California in windmills plus each person would have to install 80 sq meters of photovoltaic cells plus cut our energy consumption in half.

So it is a big problem. But, we currently spend trillions in oil. So as oil becomes more expensive, people will move to the a new source. The question for today is what will the new energy source be for now and ten to fifty years.

I think it is important though to know in the end we will have to be 100% renewable. So hopefully we can take the shortest path between there and here.

I personally think nuclear is a little out of the way.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#371
Jun4-09, 04:36 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by drewk79 View Post
I recently read a great book by David Mackay. Energy without the hot air.http://www.withouthotair.com/

He says if we wanted to stop using fossil fuels we would need to build 5 times the current level of nuclear plants plus cover California in windmills plus each person would have to install 80 sq meters of photovoltaic cells plus cut our energy consumption in half.
No he does not say this.
gmax137
gmax137 is offline
#372
Jun4-09, 06:12 PM
P: 819
Quote Quote by drewk79 View Post
I think it is important though to know in the end we will have to be 100% renewable. So hopefully we can take the shortest path between there and here.
So many people take this idea and turn it into a recipe for paralysis, resulting in no change to what is really done. That means, continued burning of coal & nat gas. If you care about solving that problem, really - read the post by Vanesch (the stupid car accident) that mheslep quoted above. Then think about it. Really really think about it. This isn't a problem solved by wishing, or by hoping.
drewk79
drewk79 is offline
#373
Jun4-09, 07:53 PM
P: 16
Here is a portion of David Mackay's article from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science...mackay.energy/

As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels.

I hope these numbers convey the scale of action required to put in place a sustainable energy solution. What about tidal power? What about wave power? What about geothermal energy, biofuels or hydroelectricity? In a short article, I can't discuss all the technology options.

I thought this was in the book but it was in fact in a CNN article.


I feel we need to as a country begin to develop small scale ways for each home to harness energy. There are 125 million homes in America. Each home spends hundreds of dollars on energy a month. If there was a cost effective way for us to make our own energy we will be on the way to becoming energy independent.

I for one am excited every day gas jumps up. I know it causes millions of dollars to be invested in developing the next energy source for us.

I am also working on a system and I will be coming out with it in the next few days.
OmCheeto
OmCheeto is offline
#374
Jun4-09, 08:54 PM
PF Gold
OmCheeto's Avatar
P: 1,369
Quote Quote by drewk79 View Post
I am also working on a system and I will be coming out with it in the next few days.
Me too. Though it'll be a bit longer.

I should be off the grid by the end of summer, as I promised sometime last year. If not, I hope the forum has a sense of humour and doesn't kick-ban me....

------------------------
Please don't ban me, please don't ban me, please don't ban me. Even though I asked. :)
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#375
Jun4-09, 09:40 PM
Mentor
P: 21,999
Quote Quote by drewk79 View Post
Here is a portion of David Mackay's article from CNN...

I hope these numbers convey the scale of action required to put in place a sustainable energy solution.
I don't see how such thought experiments are useful. The only part of it that comes anywhere close to realism is the 5-fold increase in nuclear power. Everything else is just daydreaming:

-Halving our energy usage is not an option - it isn't even desirable
-Completely eliminating coal hydrocarbon, and hydroelectric(!?) energy usage is not an option - it isn't even desirable.
-Solar power has no viability so it cannot be a part of an energy solution at this time
What about tidal power? What about wave power? What about geothermal energy, biofuels or hydroelectricity? In a short article, I can't discuss all the technology options.
None of those have any potential:
-Tidal power is expensive and there isn't much of it available
-Geothermal energy is not available
-Biofuels are not available
-hydroelectricity is essentially fully utilized already
I feel we need to as a country begin to develop small scale ways for each home to harness energy.
There is no realistic generation potential there. Heck, the energy usage of the average home isn't even that big a factor in the thought experiment. It is only something like 1/10th of our energy use. Most people use as much energy driving to and from work every day than their house uses during the day! (a gallon of gas is 45 kWh)
There are 125 million homes in America. Each home spends hundreds of dollars on energy a month. If there was a cost effective way for us to make our own energy we will be on the way to becoming energy independent.
If my poop smelled like cinnamon apple crisp, I could sell it as an air freshener! This just isn't reality.
gmax137
gmax137 is offline
#376
Jun5-09, 10:59 AM
P: 819
Quote Quote by drewk79 View Post
As a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person.
Well this may provide some perspective on the scale of the energy use, and as such it may be useful for people who are less quantitatively aware than most of the readers on this forum. But really, mixing various forms of energy use (e.g., direct combustion for home heating along with electrical power used for lighting, refrigeration & TVs) just leads to confusion. It misses the differences in efficiency etc. Read back thru this thread and others to see endless debates & misunderstandings due to this lack of specificity.

More important, mgb_phys is quite correct in pointing out the difference between average usage, and usage in the average home. Check into the amount used in office space, retail, and industrial facilities.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#377
Jun5-09, 11:44 AM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Quote Quote by drewk79 View Post
Here is a portion of David Mackay's article from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science...mackay.energy/

A[B]s a thought-experiment, let's imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let's imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.

To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.

To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.

To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today's levels....
That's more like it - no summing them altogether with the "plus"s used above.
mheslep
mheslep is offline
#378
Jun5-09, 12:22 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,021
Mackay's 125kWh/d breaks down as follows (major parts):
  • Car: 40kWh/d
  • Jet travel: 30kWh/d
  • Heating/Cooling: 37 kWh/d
  • Food/fertilizer: 14 kWh/d
  • plus misc.

Cars, heating/cooling could be improved, but as a whole there's no cutting this in half.
Also, the 125 figure doesn't include energy spent on creating imported goods (47kWh/d).


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Solutions to the energy crisis / global warming problem Earth 10
EMF Crisis Biology 4
Split from YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis Current Events 42