Can Alternative Energy Sources Meet Future U.S. Power Demand?

[sheldon]

As we know, the United States consumes more power than any other country in the world. The success of the U.S. can be directly related to its power consumption. Most of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels (Coal) that puts Co2 in the atmosphere, this is causing major pollution. The U.S. has refused to take this matter seriously and continues its consumption, and the amount needed in the future will only rise. There are alternative power sources such as wind, solar, hydro. These simply aren't going to meet the demands of the future although will supliment nicely. Even if the U.S. decided to fully try and solve this problem, we don't have the technology to accomplish the goal. There are ideas such as cold fusion, nuclear, and many others. I am writing this thread because I believe that the minds on here can come up with the answer. What is your ideas on this problem and what technology can replace coal?

 

[FZ+]

Even if the U.S. decided to fully try and solve this problem, we don't have the technology to accomplish the goal.

NOOOOOO...
We do have the technology.
We do have the science.
We do NOT have the motivation.

People will only turn to alternative energy sources if there is an immediate reason to change their mind. People are like that. If we knew coal was running out tommorrow, say, then we would certainly act. But if it is a few years or decades, then nobody bats an eyelid. If the date is indeterminate, nobody cares at all.

If we could get the real spending, the preparedness to change government policy, the accepting of responsibility, we would be in that paradise right now.

Major possibilities:

Fusion: The main target right now. Few of the disadvantages of fission stations with high power output. Difficult to sustain or control though. Maybe we'll find out the secret of controlled fusion within 20 years. But don't hold your breath...

Cold Fusion: Well, kinda rejected by science community after various early scandals, and lack of theoretical backing. Still going though. Might be a chance.

Solar: Can be used NOW. Various countries already use it for water heating. Needs steady sunlight. Possibility of satellite power station - increase output and efficiency.

Wind: Same. Rather unreliable.

Hydroelectric: Expensive. Lack of good sites.

Biogas: cheap.

A combination of the above can supplement our power needs for quite a while.

 

[sheldon]

I totaly agree, the problem is the fact that we have an abundant source of coal to use and no other significant alternative. I believe if there were a significant alternative the motivation to change would follow.

 

[russ_watters]

FZ+, what about plain old ordinary nuclear fission? It is clean and safe and inexpensive - and the we don't have to invent any technology to use it. It is an immediate and viable alternative to coal.

Solar could easily have a big impact if the government gave a tax deduction for installing them on your roof.

 

[GENIERE]

Our good friends and allies, the French, generate most of their electric power via fission. The American public is paranoid when the words “nuclear” or “atomic” are used due to the sometimes irrational views of environmental groups. How many people would submit to Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for a medical diagnosis if they knew it was really Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging? It’s likely that fusion power will be available in the next 30-50 years. Until then, fission technology is best able to supply environmentally clean energy. All energy sources pollute directly or indirecty. The well-known safety and environmental hazards associated with fission power can be dealt with if the public is sufficiently knowledgeable of the pros, not just the cons. Safe storage and disposal of waste, and the de-commissioning of nuclear power stations are problems that have practical solutions.

A national educational marketing campaign and a name change is needed to counter environmental groups’ propaganda. Fission reactors should be called “PURE” for Power Using Radiant Energy.

Regards

 

[The Grimmus]

well u have to undersatnd americans are mostly morons, no wait let me refrasi that we are iggnerant so nuclear fission is out of the question in america so is nuke-key-lure energy that Bush is always tlaking about.

But in 2008 i think we finish a laser taht will fuse two hyrdrogen atoms, so it is either that or burning little children soilent electtic

 

[drag]

Greetings !

It is not that difficult to cover a small desert
with solar panels to power the whole of the US.
It is also not difficult to build enough wind
and sea power stations that can generate all
the power that's required. The problem is that
the supply is changing and a lot more needs
to be built to make sure power is received in
the necessary amount (and solar power is only for
daytime). In the long run, however, this is bound
to payoff. The political problems are a mess though.

Vehicles are a problem but technology is catching
up quicly.

One of the ideas I considered and expressed on PF
before is that the world needs a world-wide network
of renewable energy sources. It can span continents
and oceans like the Internet and it will be
a single market which will allow countries to spare
money on building too many renewable energy sources,
reduce the total energy cost and will help
develop many of the undeveloped countries.
Again, the problem is politics - international this time.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LURCH]

Hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles will probably be first. As has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, the key is to supply proper motivation. Currently, producing enough hydrogen to propel a fuel cell driven the car the same distance as one down of gasoline drives an internal combustion car, costs about $2.50. This price will continue to come down rapidly, as new technologies always too. Meanwhile, it has been predicted by some that gasoline will reach a price in excess of $2.50 per gallon within the next year.

I think that, once the prices are the same, or even close to the same, we will begin to make the switch in earnest.

As for nuclear power, a do not think we will seriously consider it until fusion has been figured out. Fission is simply too dangerous and there is no practical solution for waste disposal.

 

[damgo]

The American public is paranoid when the words “nuclear” or “atomic” are used due to the sometimes irrational views of environmental groups.

I think the paranoia predated environmentalism, but it certainly hasn't helped. Other good examples of this is the criminal lack of food irradiation in the USA, and the hysteria over depleted uranium weapons.

Speaking of it, any of you guys have a link to some accurate info on the safety/waste risks of fission plants? How big they are, solutions, advances, comparative risks, etc.

 

[GENIERE]

As I stated, no energy source is pollution free.

Solar cells: Huge environmental impact due to paving over millions of acres of desert with silicon. What harmful effects would occur due to the change in libido? Toxic manufacturing processes are used.

Wind power: Minimal studies done on sonic pressure waves and long-term exposure of flora and fauna. Hugely disturbs the mostly pristine sites these mills would have to be located. Have you ever seen the hillsides about 80 miles east of San Francisco?

Tidal and ocean current power: Again causes pressure waves with unknown effects. It may be out of sight but the fishes may not like it.

Beamed energy from space: Too many consequences to list

Geo-Thermal power may be a possibility.

What are the long-term consequences of extracting energy from the environment?

All above may suffice for local needs in some areas with minimal impact.

Hydrogen is a great fuel, but energy is needed to extract it.

Right now, fission is only way to go.

Regards

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by drag
It is not that difficult to cover a small desert
with solar panels to power the whole of the US.
It is also not difficult to build enough wind
and sea power stations that can generate all
the power that's required.

Could you do some quick math on that? Its a ton more difficult than you think.

Hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles will probably be first. As has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, the key is to supply proper motivation. Currently, producing enough hydrogen to propel a fuel cell driven the car the same distance as one down of gasoline drives an internal combustion car, costs about $2.50. This price will continue to come down rapidly, as new technologies always too. Meanwhile, it has been predicted by some that gasoline will reach a price in excess of $2.50 per gallon within the next year.

Lurch, since it requires ELECTRICITY to make hydrogen, fuel cell cars actually make our overall energy situation WORSE.

As for nuclear power, a do not think we will seriously consider it until fusion has been figured out. Fission is simply too dangerous and there is no practical solution for waste disposal.

Fission is NOT dangerous and it is far better to store the waste in drums than say blow it out a smokestack ie coal.

Speaking of it, any of you guys have a link to some accurate info on the safety/waste risks of fission plants? How big they are, solutions, advances, comparative risks, etc.

I don't have any specific links, but I'm sure you know the worst nuclear power accident in the US was at Three Mile Island. There are tons of sites about it and a health study was recently published about the long term health effects on the surrounding community (none whatsoever). For advances, look into "pebble-bed" reactors - an inherrently safe reactor technology (meltdown is impossible).

 

[FZ+]

Fission is NOT dangerous and it is far better to store the waste in drums than say blow it out a smokestack ie coal.

So you have no problems with say, the North Koreans, setting up their own nuclear reactor? I think any of these dual use technologies have their inherent danger. And waste is still expensive to store, and hard ultimately to dispose of. But I agree the major problem is that of public relations. People don't like the idea of barrels of material being carted around on highways. Notice the uproar in the past over some nuclear fuel being just flown over a country.

People will only start to be confident over nuclear power when Mr Burns becomes the Simpsons' hero, and the Springfield Power Plant is a haven of birds and small animals, rather then a vision of harzardous waste hell. It's what I call the Homer factor.

 

[enigma]

The problem is cost. It costs much more per kiloWatt*hour to get electricity from solar than it does from coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.

That definitely goes against what the environazi's would want you to believe. It's not as simple as: build a huge solar power station, sit back, enjoy the free power. You have to deal with really low efficiencies of the cells, you have to deal with solar cells burning out, you have to deal with keeping them clean (damn birds...), etc. etc.

Can you imagine the damage to the environment of not only the solar fields themselves, but the landfills FULL of burnt out cells?

Re: nuclear. The problem is public hysteria. Yes, there is a risk of an accident. An accident has the chance of increasing cancer rates. What people don't realize is that coal, gas, and oil plants can increase the cancer risks also. They spew tons and tons of C14 into the air every year. And that is even without an accident.

Nuclear waste can relatively easily be sealed in drums and buried deep underground. The problem is, no one wants to be the lucky caretaker of the glowing stuff.

The hydrogen fuel cell cars will reduce pollution, but they will increase electricity consumption. Power plants are much more pollution efficient than automobiles are.

This statement however:

The U.S. has refused to take this matter seriously and continues its consumtion

Is blatantly false. If you look at the pollution outputs from factories over the past 150 years, they have gone down and down and down. The chief factor of this is environmental protection laws being passed. The leader of this trend is the US. Our factories are cleaner than anywhere else in the world. People just look at the stats for 'total pollution' and point the finger at us. We have more factories than anywhere else. They are still the cleanest. Who is the worst villain here?

 

[avemt1]

russ_watters
since it requires ELECTRICITY to make hydrogen, fuel cell cars actually make our overall energy situation WORSE.

THere are sources of hydrogen production plants right under your feet. just take a bucket of soil, heta it to about 220 degrees F and let it cool. you now have millions of hydrogen producing plants working for only you.
It is cheep, safe, and clean.

 

[Rebel]

but the bad thing about heating it and letting cool is that you are using energy to create energy which might cancel each other out which would be a waste of time.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by avemt1
THere are sources of hydrogen production plants right under your feet. just take a bucket of soil, heta it to about 220 degrees F and let it cool. you now have millions of hydrogen producing plants working for only you.
It is cheep, safe, and clean.

Like I said to someone else before - do some quick math on it. It is not as easy or energy efficient as people want to believe. Bottom line, if it were as easy as people want to believe it is, people would already be doing it.

Also, hydrogen producing plants? Huh? Plants don't produce hydrogen, they produce hydrocarbons (and oxygen).

 

[avemt1]

but the bad thing about heating it and letting cool is that you are using energy to create energy which might cancel each other out which would be a waste of time.

THe only reason we heat the soil is to kill all the hydrogen consumers without killing the hydrogen producers.

Also, hydrogen producing plants? Huh? Plants don't produce hydrogen, they produce hydrocarbons (and oxygen).

Not plants, but bacteria!

 

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by LURCH
As for nuclear power, a do not think we will seriously consider it until fusion has been figured out. Fission is simply too dangerous and there is no practical solution for waste disposal.

Fission is only dangerous when not treated properly e.g. Chernobyl. In this sense it is the same as anything e.g. explosives can be used for good things as well as for killing people. Also please note that the nulcear industry has one of the best safety records you can find. Most of the worry is in peoples minds.

On the issue of renewable I think it's silly to put your eggs in one basket beacuse no one energy source can deal with the energy demands of the modern world. However renewables are limited and so really need to be complented by something else. Fusion is ideal but it's not here yet, maybe 30/40 years off (anybody heard that before ). Perhaps fission could be the stop-gap choice?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
Fission is only dangerous when not treated properly e.g. Chernobyl. In this sense it is the same as anything e.g. explosives can be used for good things as well as for killing people. Also please note that the nulcear industry has one of the best safety records you can find. Most of the worry is in peoples minds.

As a matter of fact, the safety record of nuclear power industry is absolutely perfect for its impact on civilians. No civilian has ever died as a result of a nuclear power acident. Thousands die every year due to complications from air pollution.

There are tecnologies available now to make them even better. Pebble-bed nuclear reactors for example are incapable of meltdown and can be re-fueled on the fly, increasing productivity and efficiency and reducing the cost of the reactor. However, due to politics (unreasonable hysteria), there hasn't been a single nuclear power lant built in the US in something like 25 years.

 

[FZ+]

As a matter of fact, the safety record of nuclear power industry is absolutely perfect for its impact on civilians. No civilian has ever died as a result of a nuclear power acident. Thousands die every year due to complications from air pollution.

Though I agree that nuclear power is presently safe, I don't think this assertion is entirely correct. The fact is, when nuclear contamination causes things like cancer that do occur normally, it is difficult to quantify the full effects of the accident. You can say no civilian directly died of a nuclear accident, in that none of them were blown up or anything, but the statistical cancer and birth defect rate in chernobyl is unusually high, and it probably had a link to the power plant accident.

 

[enigma]

Thousands died in Chernobyl, no?

At very least a few hundred... People still can't go to the site without the full marshmallow suits on.

 

[sir-pinski]

I can't remeber how many workers died as a direct result of the chernobyl accident but I know that some did. However chernobyl is not a good example of nuclear practices in most of the world. The reactor was a botch job in the first place, badly designed and not operated safely. Most western countries have very effective safety policies in place which has resulted in an excellent safety record. Besides how many seriously poluting nuc. accidents have there been? I don't think there have been many over the last 50 years. Not bad for a supposedly dangerous technology.

As far as pebble bed's go, a lot of people have commented on them as the better alternative to current reactors, however as far as I'm aware no one has built one yet. Perhaps one day but not in the near future. Mind you the U.S. still has the most plants in the world although it doesn't generate as much electricity from them.

 

[Jikx]

but what are you going to do with the all that nuclear waste? Ship it to Australia ??

I'm not sure why, but so far everyone has missed a very very vital point. Why is it you want to produce more power, when it is most environmentally effective to reduce the need. Using less is pollution free..

 

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by Jikx
but what are you going to do with the all that nuclear waste? Ship it to Australia ??

Any reason why australia?

The amount fo nuclear waste that is produced is not as much as most people think. A rough ball park figure is that a typical family will produce a 10 cm^3 block of waste from the electricity they use in their lifetime i.e. 80-100 years. This is small in comparison with the waste from lots of other energy sources. I know the waste is a problem but let's be pragmatic here. A good energy supply is required which doesn't spew out tonnes of CO2, nuclear fits the bill. It's not a final solution but it's good enough for now.

Originally posted by Jikx
I'm not sure why, but so far everyone has missed a very very vital point. Why is it you want to produce more power, when it is most environmentally effective to reduce the need. Using less is pollution free.

But that's not going to happen. Even if the western world reduces it's consumption then the other 4 billion (and increasing) people in the world will make that up. There are countries in the world that are are going to want increased electricty generation in the next 50 years and someone has to provide it. It's pretty unavoidable I'm afraid.

 

[quantumcarl]

alternatives

My alternative:

Everybody live in a tent, walk everywhere, use a canoe and learn how to survive like that. Fu** rush hour.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Though I agree that nuclear power is presently safe, I don't think this assertion is entirely correct. The fact is, when nuclear contamination causes things like cancer that do occur normally, it is difficult to quantify the full effects of the accident. You can say no civilian directly died of a nuclear accident, in that none of them were blown up or anything, but the statistical cancer and birth defect rate in chernobyl is unusually high, and it probably had a link to the power plant accident.

Sorry, I was referring to the US nuclear power industry. The US nuclear power industry isn't comparable to Russia's. I should have been more clear. Chernobyl was a flawed design that was well known (by even the Russians) to be a bomb waiting to go off.

The worst nuclear accident in US history was TMI. It released a trivial amount of radioactive material and a broad study recently showed no statistically relevant increase in cancer rates in the surrounding community.

I'm not sure why, but so far everyone has missed a very very vital point. Why is it you want to produce more power, when it is most environmentally effective to reduce the need. Using less is pollution free..

That is simply not a viable option. I read somewhere that half (3/4?) of the worlds population has no access to electricity. That won't last forever. Demand for power is only going to increase exponentially for the forseeable future.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
Any reason why australia?

The amount fo nuclear waste that is produced is not as much as most people think. A rough ball park figure is that a typical family will produce a 10 cm^3 block of waste from the electricity they use in their lifetime i.e. 80-100 years. This is small in comparison with the waste from lots of other energy sources. I know the waste is a problem but let's be pragmatic here.

I'm not sure volume is the most pragmatic measure of the waste problem. How many people will that 10cm³ kill if it is released into the environment? More than the tons CO₂ released in burning coal to produce the same amount of energy? Also, that 10cm³ of radioactive waste will still be lethal 10,000 years from now. While the old waste remains deadly, new waste is being produced. How long would it take for the accumulated amount to surpass that of more conventional feuls?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by LURCH
I'm not sure volume is the most pragmatic measure of the waste problem. How many people will that 10cm³ kill if it is released into the environment? More than the tons CO₂ released in burning coal to produce the same amount of energy? Also, that 10cm³ of radioactive waste will still be lethal 10,000 years from now. While the old waste remains deadly, new waste is being produced. How long would it take for the accumulated amount to surpass that of more conventional feuls?

One thing though. Currently that nuclear waste is NOT released into the environement and does NOT kill people. Pollution from fossil fuel plants IS and DOES.

I think fencing off a couple of square miles of desert in New Mexico for 100,000 years is a reasonable tradeoff.

 

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by LURCH
I'm not sure volume is the most pragmatic measure of the waste problem. How many people will that 10cm³ kill if it is released into the environment? More than the tons CO₂ released in burning coal to produce the same amount of energy? Also, that 10cm³ of radioactive waste will still be lethal 10,000 years from now. While the old waste remains deadly, new waste is being produced. How long would it take for the accumulated amount to surpass that of more conventional feuls?

As russ said it's not released into the environment wheras CO₂ is. The rate of production of waste is nothing like that produced by other industries and it is managed with a high level of care. There are also new nuclear fuels being researched which could help in the waste problem and are looking promising. As far as the 10,000 years later argument goes, do you really think that if we are still around then that we will still not be able to properly treat the waste?

Don't get me wrong on this, if there was a good alternative I wouldn't choose nuclear fission at all but until one pops up I see nuclear as the best option for a large amount of electricity generation.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
As far as the 10,000 years later argument goes, do you really think that if we are still around then that we will still not be able to properly treat the waste?

I was going to let that one slide because I think regardless, nuclear is a good idea. But I agree with you - we will find other ways of dealing with the waste issue. We do however currently need a temporary fix.

 

[sir-pinski]

I have to agree that this argument is not the best for nuclear PR but I've heard the "waste still around in 10,000 years" argument too many times.

There are some nice new ideas for nuclear fuels which only burn plutonium. It's very good for non-proliferation and does reduce how nasty the waste is.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
I have to agree that this argument is not the best for nuclear PR but I've heard the "waste still around in 10,000 years" argument too many times.

There are some nice new ideas for nuclear fuels which only burn plutonium. It's very good for non-proliferation and does reduce how nasty the waste is.

Would it hurt much to blow all the nuke waste into the Sun?

Just a few bucks spent on rocket fuel and techies.

We spend way more on saving little Iraqi children from bad guys with moustaches.

Why keep the waste around here?

The Sun handles that kind of stuff all the time.

 

[FZ+]

Would it hurt much to blow all the nuke waste into the Sun?
Just a few bucks spent on rocket fuel and techies.

Make that a few billion bucks... More perhaps, considering how heavy fissile materials usually are. And I doubt the public will be very happy about a few tons of highly hazardous nuclear waste being strapped on top of several megatons of high explosive rocket fuel... On, and you'll probably lose the rocket itself too.

We spend way more on saving little Iraqi children from bad guys with moustaches.

Yes, but that sort of stuff gets you votes in the next elections. Launching rockets packed with nuclear material would hardly be popular, unless you are targeting communists or something.

Why keep the waste around here?

Cheap. Pretty safe as we can keep a watch on it. That sort of thing...

The Sun handles that kind of stuff all the time.

Er... no. Stars only generate heavier metals like uranium when they going into a rather fun event called a supernova. This usually only happens once. It is inadvisible to be within a distance of a few hundred light years when it happens.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
As far as the 10,000 years later argument goes, do you really think that if we are still around then that we will still not be able to properly treat the waste?

Oh no, I'm not saying that at all! What troubles me is not the question of what they'll do with it then, I'm sure they'll have found a way to make a popular soft-drink out of it! But if you only look at where we put it today and what our decendants will do with it ten millenia from now, you miss the "big picture"; all those days in between. During those 10,000 years, governments will rise and fall, the languages will change, maps will be re-written, and we won't lose track of this stuff that whole time? The pyramids will probably not last that long, do you think we can build a sealed container that will? This waste will be sitting there every day for that entire period of time, and if we screw up on just one of those days...

What would be required for the waste to be safely stored is a ten-thousand-year-long "perfect record". I just don't know if we can go that long without one botch-job.

QuantumCarl, no, we couldn't do anything to harm the Sun. We aren't even close to that powerfull yet. But, as FZ+ said, that would be tremendously expensive. Also, it is a near certainty that one of these rockets would crash every now and then. And radioactive waste atomised by re-entry into the atmosphere is a real nightmare scenario!

 

[sheldon]

Considering the fact that we have an abundant amount of coal and are already using it. Maybe we should focus on CO2 scrubbing technology on the rear of these plants?