YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[russ_watters]

We always have threads on various pieces of the puzzle, but what I want here is for people to post a coherent plan of how to fix the energy problems we have in the US (and critique what others propose). Some groundrules:

First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' or 'increase production' - tell me how.

Third, money is important, but not critical (for this thread), so don't let it constrain your ambition. I want solutions that will work - paying for them is another matter. Obviously, any solution will require making tough choices and (in the short term, anyway) spending a lot of money. No need to build a new budget to support it. If you say you want to spend a trillion dollars a year, fine (but the benefit had better be big).

http://www.agmrc.org/markets/info/energyoverview.pdf is a site from another thread with some background info on what we use for what.

I'll go first...

 

[russ_watters]

The problems I see are as follows (in order):

1. Pollution, specifically coal: Somewhere around a quarter of our energy usage is in the form of coal - virtually all of that is used to generate electricity. Oil is also a major source of pollution, though its uses (and pollution production) are more diverse. I don't consider nuclear power to be a major (or even minor) source of pollution.

2. Capacity (vs demand): Demand is rising faster than supply and results in increasing costs and more frequent (and more massive) power outages.

3. Foreign dependence: Reducing our emphasis on foreign oil would improve the global political situation somewhat, but more important is reducing our trade deficit.

4. Cost: Obviously solutions cost money, but in the long term, a good solution could reduce energy costs.

My solution is a 30 year, multi-pronged, and three-phased approach:

Phase 1 is short term: 10 years. It will focus on short-term needs and heavily fund research for long-term solutions. It will include:

-Construction of many large, modern nuclear power plants. Five years or so of design and preparation should enable starting construction of 10 a year, taking 5 years to complete, for the indefinite future. By the end of phase 2, it would mean replacement of all existing nuke plants and an overall doubling of capacity from nuclear power. Increases in capacity would start at the end of the 10 year phase 1. This is a major expense: tens of billions of dollars per year.

-Fund alternate energy research heavily. Emphasize things considered viable, but spread money around enough to pick up some speculative research. Fusion and solar power are key. Fund hydrogen fuel cells too, but I'm more concerned with generation than storage. Fund improved fission technologies. Total funding for research would be on the order of ten billion dollars per year.

-Immediately impose heavy regulations to reduce the largest sources of pollution immediately (no 10 year phase-in crap). This means, primarily, coal power plants. Technology exists to greatly reduce their pollution with little difficulty (just money) - require its immediate implimentation. Close other loopholes - trucks and ships aren't as well regulated as cars, for example. This cost would largely be absorbed by the economy, but it would be several tens of billions of dollars.

-Subsidize personal alternate energy, ie solar panels on houses/businesses.

-Reward conservation, ie. give tax incentives for conservation: buying compact fluorescent lights, heat recovery, energy efficient heat/ac, etc.

Phase 2, 10 years, decision-making, development, expansion of Phase 1 solutions. After 10 years of heavy research, we should know where we stand on new technologies. Start implimenting what works, continue research on what is promising, and drop what is not.

-If fusion becomes viable, start planning for massive (and I mean massive) implimentation. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

-Expand Phase 1 nuclear plant construction (unless a viable alternate is found) and include new technology. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

-Start de-comissioning coal plants as new nuke plants come online unless significant (and I mean in excess of 99%) reductions in emissions are doable.

-Start implimenting solar solutions: that means ramping up production of 20% efficient solar cells on the order of hundreds of square miles per year (or space-based collectors). This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

-Start implimenting secondary energy solutions, ie hydrogen fuel cells. Emphasize production and distribution. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

-Upgrade electric grid to handle upcoming new load and distribution. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

Phase 3: Long term solutions

-Continue nuclear program - fission or fusion:

-If fusion is available, build 10-20 plants, hundreds of terawatts each, and have them take over the vast majority (>90%) of the grid, including expanded capacity for hydrogen generation. This could easily cost a trillion dollars over 10 years.

-If fusion is not available, construct large solar arrays to augment fission capacity. 30-50% of total capacity should be solar. This could also easily cost a trillion dollars over 10 years.

-Close the rest of the coal plants.

-Begin phase-out of gas powered cars.

In my estimation, in 30 years we could transform the way we produce energy in the US. But it wouldn't be cheap: easily $100 billion a year or $3 trillion over the 30 year life of the project. Roughly 1% of our current gdp. Of course, much of this money is recirculated, so its not as simple (or bad) as just sucking it out of the economy.

The benefit after 30 years, would be vastly reduced pollution, vastly increased capacity, assured long term availability/renewability, and lower energy costs going forward.

 

[motai]

Phase 2, 10 years, decision-making, development, expansion of Phase 1 solutions. After 10 years of heavy research, we should know where we stand on new technologies. Start implimenting what works, continue research on what is promising, and drop what is not.

-If fusion becomes viable, start planning for massive (and I mean massive) implimentation. This would cost tens of billions of dollars a year.

Hopefully if the progress of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) remains steady, a commercial fusion power plant should be available in the years following 2010.

In my estimation, in 30 years we could transform the way we produce energy in the US. But it wouldn't be cheap: easily $100 billion a year or $3 trillion over the 30 year life of the project. Roughly 1% of our current gdp. Of course, much of this money is recirculated, so its not as simple (or bad) as just sucking it out of the economy.

The benefit after 30 years, would be vastly reduced pollution, vastly increased capacity, assured long term availability/renewability, and lower energy costs going forward.

Its a good plan but...

The only problem in implementing this program is the politics that go along with it. I believe under the Clinton Administration their energy advisor didn't quite know what he was talking about, so America lagged behind in terms of nuclear research. I think the Bush administation's energy advisor wants to continue to build more nuclear plants in the future... and I believe Kerry wants to maintain current nuclear plants.

 

[russ_watters]

Its a good plan but...

The only problem in implementing this program is the politics that go along with it. I believe under the Clinton Administration their energy advisor didn't quite know what he was talking about, so America lagged behind in terms of nuclear research. I think the Bush administation's energy advisor wants to continue to build more nuclear plants in the future... and I believe Kerry wants to maintain current nuclear plants.

Thanks, and I share your concern: I don't think any politician is really willing to put a serious effort into this and the climate in the public isn't favorable to it either. Being the pessimist I am, I think its going to be 10-20 years of steadily increasing problems (the New York blackout every other month) before people start seriously considering fixing these problems.

In any case, I wanted to focus on problems and solutions here, not politics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I will give some thought to this later, but I mostly follow the plan outlined by the joint venture between the National Hydrogen Assocication and the DOE, among others. I think these people are on the right tract.

Implemetation Plan"
http://www.hydrogenus.com/implementationplan.asp

Commercialization Plan
http://www.hydrogenus.com/commercializationplan.asp

 

[PRodQuanta]

Dayle's got some good points.

Being in the Midwest, I would love to see biomass become our number one energy supply. i.e.-ethanol. This allows us to become less dependant on foreign oil, but our wealthy politicians who run this place wouldn't want that now, would they!? It doesn't help that some of our countries leaders are so closely tied w/ the oil economy... CoUgHBuShCoUgH...

I've also done some research on a microbe that will convert any type of sugar to electricity. Why not harvest those, use the same method they use to make ethanol, and feed them the sugar? This would get rid of farm waste also (living on a farm, I'd know).

I dunno... just my OPINION! Whatever you other posters do, make sure you read the word "OPINION" before biting my head off. It is my right.

My $.02

Paden Roder

 

[Artorius]

Being in the Midwest, I would love to see biomass become our number one energy supply. i.e.-ethanol. This allows us to become less dependant on foreign oil, but our wealthy politicians who run this place wouldn't want that now, would they!? It doesn't help that some of our countries leaders are so closely tied w/ the oil economy... CoUgHBuShCoUgH...

In comparison with gasoline, how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere if one gallon of ethanol is burned in an engine? I know that for gasoline, the value is around 20lb. If ethanol releases a substantially smaller amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, it may be a better alternative to gasoline for transportation fuel. Over time, if ethanol is used on a large scale, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere may be "scrubbed" back to their pre-industrial levels by the biosphere (this is prob just wishful thinking ). But, like you said, with Bush, Inc. in the back pocket of Big Oil, things will not change.

Dayle's got some good points.

I like Dayle's post, too. Instead of placing the burden of the "energy crisis" on engineers to come up with new technology, maybe the burden should be placed on every man, woman, and child to conserve energy resources by changing behavior (by using mass transit, learning to live in hot weather instead of turning on the air conditioner, learning to wear long underwear in the winter, using cloth grocery bags, learning to quit breeding like rabbits, etc.). An intensive educational awareness program of the energy situation and how people can help out is sorely needed. I know that after the brief energy crisis of the 1970's, there was a multitude of such educational initiatives and quick progress in alternative energies. Then oil came back down in price, and we went right back to the status quo of maximization of consumerism. Funny how it all comes back to oil.

That's my $0.02.

 

[tumor]

For start, force people to switch from incadescent lightbulbs to fluorescent ones. In USA fluorescent bulbs are still BIG news.Small steps like this can make big difference.

 

[Cliff_J]

I've read that in the most wealthy nations there is not self-sustaining population growth, that the death rate exceeds the new birth rate. However in the poorest nations, this is reversed in dramtic fashion. Even Feyman admitted to not having a clue to how to assist the poorest members of our global society in one of his books. And some controversial (but thought-provoking) ideas have been floated around that the assistance efforts have contributed more to the population growth in the poorest areas to make the problem worse than before the assistance.

But our use of resources does keep increasing, no doubt about that. Russ addressed this in his point of using regulations, taxes, and incentives to change this phenomenon.

And that is my issue, is that the people of the industrialized world won't change the consumption habits without leadership to do so and the policies to provide incentive to change.

Car & Driver did some research into pollution controls on automobiles to see how effective certain policies have been. In short, compared to the pollution emitted by power generation (mostly coal) and industrial pollution the numbers were almost statistically insignificant. Abroad this is even a larger issue as the policies there have yet to even address pollution in many countries, and their problems show little signs of improving.

"Green" policies would go an incredibly long ways to getting this done. Something like what Minnesota is doing with their E85 efforts to bring an alternative fuel to market should be commended, they have plenty working against them. Seattle or Portland (can't remember which one) switching to hybrid public buses to save something staggering like 30 million gallons of diesel each year.

As much of a libertarian as I am supporting less government, I think a simple change to tax polluters and reward conservation would be one of the few methods of accomplishing the goals. Too many people plod along in giant SUVs and give me grief on driving a V8 car that gets 26.5 MPG because they assume it guzzles more gas than their hog. I'd love to convert it to run on hydrogen and get 3000MPG of gas especially if the US government would borrow from Britians laws where they will pay for conversions to LPG to help with their petroleum problems.

I also agree with the nuclear generation of electricity but the public seems far too gun-shy of such a concept to allow this to become a reality. Unfortunately I also agree that many of the upgrades to the electrical grid will not be implemented until the problem becomes much worse.

Personally I'm happy that just some of us are aware of the multitude of issues and having discussions about it. All we need now is more activists like Dennis Weaver (big supporter of alternative automotive fuels) to champion the cause and get public support for it. Many because I cynically view the population as a whole to not being able to move towards such a goal until its a clear economic choice to pay heavily to pollute and waste resources and save money to do the opposite.

my two cents..
Cliff

 

[PRodQuanta]

Just something to break off our foreign dependancy on oil. That reason is a big contributer to higher gas prices and (well, what I've heard) some war going on in the Middle East. Bush's back pocket isn't worth killing American soldiers. Get some smart people in there to enforce E85, hydrogen, or SOMETHING! It not only frustrates me, it kinda scares me. One day a bomb's going to drop, if this doesn't stop.

My (well...$.02+$.02...)$.04

Paden Roder

 

[russ_watters]

I will give some thought to this later, but I mostly follow the plan outlined by the joint venture between the National Hydrogen Assocication and the DOE, among others. I think these people are on the right tract.

I only skimmed your links, I'll spend more time with them, but it looks like pilot programs for hydrogen fuel implimentation - busses, for example. Pilot programs are good for study, but my fear is that they are emphasizing the end use of the hydrogen, and not the production of the hydrogen. And that's by far the larger issue. Building hydrogen fuel busses is relatively easy by comparison.

Yeah, it is motion in the right direction, but not much... I want faster, bigger ideas. I posted this thread because it appears to me no one is thinking big about these issues.

 

[tumor]

we all want changes, then we have to start changing our selfs first.

 

[Dayle Record]

I believe you erased my post in this thread. Is that so?

 

[russ_watters]

I believe you erased my post in this thread. Is that so?

Yes, I did. I thought I had posted an explanation, but it appears it didn't go through. Your post was off topic. If you want to discuss the political and moral issues of people's effect on the environment, start a thread in the appropriate forum. I don't appreciate your attempt to hijack this thread.

 

[PRodQuanta]

So, you got any insight on my proposal russ? I mean, seriously, if I'm being led astray here, I'd like to know an experts opinion. Is biomass a likely possibility?

Paden Roder

 

[motai]

I'd like to know an experts opinion. Is biomass a likely possibility?

Paden Roder

Im not an expert, but id think that biomass as a primary source couldn't sustain a larger country like America. It seems too low-yield for any substantial energy outputs. Personally I think for best results the primary source should be some form of nuclear (be it fission or fusion) as a base with other sources such as wind, biomass, solar, etc. falling in behind it.

I was able to google a site that compares different energy sources: http://www.ewg.org/reports/choosinggreenenergy/appendix.html?print_version=1

 

[russ_watters]

So, you got any insight on my proposal russ? I mean, seriously, if I'm being led astray here, I'd like to know an experts opinion. Is biomass a likely possibility?

I thought I had replied to yours too. Hmm. Biomass is a good idea, but I also don't think it has anywhere near the capacity to make more than a local impact.

 

[Artman]

There are a lot of missed opportunities out there for recovering energy.

Some energy recovery methods include: grey water heat exchangers (to recover heat from warm waste water), well water heat exchangers and desuperheaters (to precool refrigerant and preheat water), energy recovery ventilators (to recover heat from exhaust air), some forms of active solar air heating systems (Using large metal panels to heat incoming air for warehouses) can be used as insulation as well as heat to achieve 'R' values close to 50 (in heating season).

Recovery of waste heat in cooling systems for preheating hot water benefit both of the systems (cooling and water heating) and can be incorporated in both home and commercial systems.

Magnetic refrigeration systems show potential in the future for low energy use systems for refrigeration of cold storage boxes and large commercial cooling units. These also work with just water as the refrigerant so environmental impact is reduced.

 

[russ_watters]

So many of my clients could be doing more for energy efficiency - and tightening the codes to require it would help a lot too. Even on a 5 year payback, most companies still won't do it on their own.

 

[Artman]

Some energy recovery methods include: grey water heat exchangers (to recover heat from warm waste water).
Waste Water Preheater

In fact, about a trillion kWh (= 3413 trillion Btu) go down America’s drains each year.

Active solar air heating systems.
http://www.solarwall.com/sw/swHow.html

Well water heat exchangers and desuperheaters (to precool refrigerant and preheat water), energy recovery ventilators (to recover heat from exhaust air), Recovery of waste heat in cooling systems for preheating hot water benefit both of the systems (cooling and water heating) and can be incorporated in both home and commercial systems.
http://www.oxfordplasticsinc.com/geothermalheating.htm

# Free or Cheap Hot Water - unlike any other heating and cooling system, a geothermal heat pump can provide free hot water using a device called a "desuperheater".

Magnetic refrigeration systems show potential in the future for low energy use systems for refrigeration of cold storage boxes and large commercial cooling units. These also work with just water as the refrigerant so environmental impact is reduced.
http:/Magentic Refrigerator

With the goal of making refrigerators and air conditioners more efficient, several groups around the world are developing magnetic-refrigerant materials. A magnetic-cooling system could also be less polluting than current systems because it wouldn't use environmentally harmful chemicals, such as ammonia or chlorofluorocarbons.

 

[Artman]

So many of my clients could be doing more for energy efficiency - and tightening the codes to require it would help a lot too. Even on a 5 year payback, most companies still won't do it on their own.

I am starting to see more use of energy recovery, but still, the first cost does scare many off of the idea.

 

[Locrian]

There was an article published in Science magazine around 2000 by a couple of civil engineers in the northeast suggesting that you could replace half of all coal power with wind power and, after taking in consideration hidden costs such as healthcare for coal miners, it would not be significantly more expensive.

The price tag was something like 250 billion. That sounds like a lot, but hey, its half the crooked medicare bill the administration barreled through not long ago.

I can look for the reference if someone is interested, though you'll need access to Science magazine to see the full article.

 

[GENIERE]

I don’t think using any type of combustible fuel, including Hydrogen, is a good idea. Burning Hydrogen generates noxious gases because the atmosphere is only about 21% oxygen. Realistically energy is simply an economics problem. The faster the price of fuel increases, the faster the politicians must respond to the loudly voiced discontent that will surely occur. I’m hoping oil prices skyrocket forcing the rapid development of fusion power generation.

 

[Cliff_J]

I don’t think using any type of combustible fuel, including Hydrogen, is a good idea. Burning Hydrogen generates noxious gases because the atmosphere is only about 21% oxygen.

Exactly what gases do you speak of in particular? If burned stoichiometric then H2 is quite clean, even if burned lean and hot so as to result in the production of NOx this can easily be cleaned up with the addition of a little more H2 and a scrubber and would still be as practical as a catalytic converter is today.

And if widespread H2 production were to be employed that used water as the source we could create as much O2 as a byproduct as any rainforest.

If nuclear, wind, PV, hydro, etc power production was more predominant then H2 production is a logical energy storage mechanism and has the ability to maximize resource utilization that might otherwise be wasted. As Russ addressed though, H2 production seems to be a low priority.

Cliff

 

[Kenneth Mann]

I don’t think using any type of combustible fuel, including Hydrogen, is a good idea. Burning Hydrogen generates noxious gases because the atmosphere is only about 21% oxygen. Realistically energy is simply an economics problem. The faster the price of fuel increases, the faster the politicians must respond to the loudly voiced discontent that will surely occur. I’m hoping oil prices skyrocket forcing the rapid development of fusion power generation.

I hope you don't really mean those last two sentences. Do you really wish for a disaster to force us to behave more logically? Think of the possibilities. Sometimes even the strongest societies don't survive disasters if they are sudden enough and cause enough damage. The result could possibly be the onset of another 'Dark Age'. Let's hope for better; that we can make progress without some form of cataclysmic event.

Second point:
A little history for those of you who are younger. Fifty or so
years ago there was great enthusiasm over nuclear fusion. After
all, it had taken only a few short years to control the fission process
for power generation. The great belief then was that we'd have
thermonuclear power generation within five (ten at most) years.
Then, after about twenty five years that great confidence was dampened
down to a cautious hope. Now, after roughly five decades of slow
but discernable progress, that optimism seems to be returning, so
I simply leave the little caveat - - - Don't pin too much hope on this
technology until you actually see it taking place. (Now, with that
said, some people at Princeton Labs do seem to be quite upbeat.)


KM

 

[russ_watters]

Someone said in another forum that fusion has been 25 years away for the past 50 years and will likely continue to be 25 years away for some time to come. For that reason, I would agree that any solution needs to be based largely one already existing technology - such as (imo) fission power.

 

[russ_watters]

There was an article published in Science magazine around 2000 by a couple of civil engineers in the northeast suggesting that you could replace half of all coal power with wind power and, after taking in consideration hidden costs such as healthcare for coal miners, it would not be significantly more expensive.

The price tag was something like 250 billion. That sounds like a lot, but hey, its half the crooked medicare bill the administration barreled through not long ago.

I can look for the reference if someone is interested, though you'll need access to Science magazine to see the full article.

I'd be interested to read it and I'm not surprised since something like 20,000 people die prematurely every year in the US due to air pollution and coal for electric power is far and away the largest fraction of that. Still, that's an awful lot of windmills and I'm not sure its even possible to have that many in the US.

...[2 minutes of research later] Coal accounts for about 250,000 megawatts of capacity in the US (wind power accounts for about 4,500 - but at lower availability due to its variable output). The average installed turbine has a capacity of about half a megawatt and the largest about 1 mW. Assuming new ones average closer to 1 mW, that's 125,000 new wind turbines (assuming 100% availability).

At $250 billion, that's about $2 million per turbine, which I think is overly optomistic, nevertheless its a reasonable number for a multi-year (10 year, probably) project, considering my proposals were on the order of $100 billion a year.

Certainly something worthy of study.

 

[GENIERE]

Skyrocket was a poor term to use. Nevertheless attacking the purse is the only means to inspire action. Obviously oil price inflation should be planned and sufficiently gradual to minimize economic damage. The point is moot as oil prices are rising now and with ups and downs will continue to rise. I’m suggesting a $5.00 per barrel tax dedicated entirely to alternative energy development; $2.00 of which to support an international. Consortium. In my mind only fusion power is worthy of investment. I’ve read that wind power widely used could provide 20% of the nations energy. As efficient technology presently exists, implementation should be immediate. Ditto for fission power, with plants built for 30 years of use.

Hydrogen utilization at best can only be considered a means of storing energy, maybe a better battery. It must be:

Produced
Stored
Transported to point of use
Stored
Combusted

None of these methodologies presently exist (large scale), all require at least one decade of development and the commitment of immense monetary resources. I’m not aware of any stoichiometric process affordable by an individual on the consumer end. After this is all in place and functioning, production remains a problem. Hydrogen can be produced by combusting Hydrogen (in the sense of providing energy) but the best known process can only achieve 75% efficiency. We can burn coal, oil, and corn to make up the 25% loss. With the additional losses down the pipeline contributing another 25% (best case) loss of efficiency, what’s the point?


IMO star power is a realistic goal, but maybe a pipedream restricting us to transmuting U235 with a little wind, water, and sun thrown in for flavoring. Once the implementation of the least poluting prime energy source(s) is realized, Hydrogen may be a good choice for utilizing the energy, but first things first.

- -

 

[brewnog]

On topic book rec:

Paul Roberts - The End Of Oil (2004, Bloomsbury, ISBN 0747570752)

Not going to get myself dragged into this thread (which is patently about to become a monster) summarising it, but if you're genuinely interested about the causes, effects and solutions for the impending energy crisis in the western world, it's the book for you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Methane in deep earth: A possible new source of energy

LIVERMORE, Calif. -- Untapped reserves of methane, the main component in natural gas, may be found deep in Earth's crust, according to a recently released report* in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). These reserves could be a virtually inexhaustible source of energy for future generations. [continued]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/dlnl-mid091304.php

Also
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/ci-hit090904.php

 

[GENIERE]

Ivan Seeking - Methaneclathrates are thought to be formations holding immense amounts of methane at shallow ocean depths. Are these formations the same as the ones you've provided links to? I've only scanned the links at the momment.

 

[russ_watters]

Skyrocket was a poor term to use. Nevertheless attacking the purse is the only means to inspire action. Obviously oil price inflation should be planned and sufficiently gradual to minimize economic damage. The point is moot as oil prices are rising now and with ups and downs will continue to rise. I’m suggesting a $5.00 per barrel tax dedicated entirely to alternative energy development; $2.00 of which to support an international. Consortium.

I share your assessment of the economic reality here: The gas crunch of the 1970s is a good case in point. It led to an ultimately temporary shift away from large gas-guzzlers to small energy efficient cars. A gas/oil tax could both provide money to fund alternate energy (or expanded conventional energy) and encourage conservation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan Seeking - Methaneclathrates are thought to be formations holding immense amounts of methane at shallow ocean depths. Are these formations the same as the ones you've provided links to? I've only scanned the links at the momment.

I don't know exactly how they are related - presumably they are - but this report suggests that methane forms naturally and continuously without the need for biomass. This is completely new information AFAIK. EDIT: This might expand our field of options significantly in that the gas is much more abundant than we ever realized.

Note also that about two or three years ago, a couple of reports surfaced indicating that a primordial layer of Hydrogen may be down there as well. Unfortunately, this rock-bound H2 is thought to be something like 50 KM deep.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A new test that produced methane under conditions mimicking the deep interiors of Earth and Mars lends support to an idea that the gas could theoretically support unseen colonies of microbes on both worlds. And the study hints at the possibility of a potential vast supply of petroleum products. [continued]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/methane_production_040923.html

 

[Rothiemurchus]

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

 

[philocrazy]

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

 

[thennigar]

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

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

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

 

[Dayle Record]

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

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

 

[Rab]

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

 

[tumor]

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

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

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

 

[4newton]

Rab

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

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[LENIN]

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

 

[tumor]

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

 

[RuiMonteiro]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Rui Monteiro.


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

 

[Cliff_J]

Well said Rui. Couple thoughts reading your post.

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

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

Cliff

 

[RuiMonteiro]

Thank you for the words Cliff.

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

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

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

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



Rui M.

 

[Cliff_J]

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

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

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

Cliff

 

[Burnsys]

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

-Russ

 

[RuiMonteiro]

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

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

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

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

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

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



Rui M.