News Should nuclear energy be phased out?

[Cyrus]

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

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I am talking more along the lines of you are filling up spaceship after spaceship with drums of this stuff and shooting it off into space.

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

You are bound to have an accident sooner or later.

Certainly true.

All it takes is for one of them to land in a major city and dump its contents into a water source. Thats one risk I would not be willing to take.

But how big of a risk is that really? 1 in a million? 1 in a billion? At some point, you have to decide if that risk is worth the trade-offs we are currently making: such as 20,000 people a year dying from air pollution in the US alone.

edit: caveat: launches have well-defined flight-plans. Even if the odds of a failure were, say, 1 in a 1000, there would be virtually no chance of the container finding its way to New York. They don't go in that direction.

(also, I don't think that space our new trash can)

Why not? It's a pretty big trash can...

 

[Cyrus]

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

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

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

Space is not a trash can, sorry.

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

I agree that the economics make it unlikely for the time being, but there is no technical reason why it isn't feasible(I did say that I didn't think it would happen in my long post - and that is the reason why). That's my main point. But any alternative is going to require some major costs.

And remember - we've already spent $6.4 billion on the Yucca mountains project with nothing to show for it (except, of course, that our nuclear waste has remained safe and secure for those 20 years). Regardless of what the solutions to all these problems are, the cost will almost certainly reach into the trillions.

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

That isn't risk. Risk is the effect of the event weighed against the likelihood of the event happening. You're making the same mistake that millions of lottery losers make by only considering the event and not weighing the actual risk. When was the last time you were in a plane? There is a risk of death with flying, you know... How about when you drove in a car last?

Tell me what you think the likelihood of such an accident is and then we can evaluate the actual risk. We'll then compare it to other risks, such as a million deaths due to air pollution over 50 years (probability: 1:1).

Space is not a trash can, sorry.

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

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

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

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

 

[Cyrus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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

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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Because I believe that we as a nation are horribly wastefull. We use more power than any other nation, and we waste more than any other nation. And I don't think that gives us the right nor anyone else the right to go around trashing the place. I believe in giving back what you take from the land.

And what exactly does this have to do with whether or not it's ok to dump waste into space?

 

[Cyrus]

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

 

[russ_watters]

Well, you are assuming that all that nuclear material goes all over the atmosphere.

Actually, I was using your assumption from a previous post: "you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth." But we can do others...

What if something happens just shortly after launch.

Ok...

That will spread out mostly over the launch pad/local area. Not over the entire atmosphere.

Will it? How? The containers that are being planned for transporting waste to the Yucca Mountains could easily withstand the destruction of the launch vehicle. Setting that aside (lets assume one gets hit by a meteor seconds after launch - there is a calculable probability of that happening)...

So now you have a problem that is localized, in significant concentrations.

Yes, localized, in significant concentrations, over the atlantic ocean. Still not much of a problem.

Because I believe that we as a nation are horribly wasteful. We use more power than any other nation, and we waste more than any other nation.

True or not, what does that have to do with using space as a dumping-ground?

And I don't think that gives us the right nor anyone else the right to go around trashing the place. I believe in giving back what you take from the land.

"trashing the place"? Space? Huh? We're talking about space here, Cyrus: How could anything we throw at our solar system have any impact we could possibly care about? We could use Mars as a dumping-ground for all I care, but if it bothers you, we could also use the Sun. We wouldn't even be able to measure the impact it would have, much less see it.

Not to metion the amount of air pollution it would cost to lanuch rockets 24-7 to send all our trash into space.

Calculate for me how many launches and how much pollution we're talking about.

Also, I already said economics are an issue - but just having to do a launch a day for 10 years (guess) isn't an insurmountable technical hurdle.

No, I am willing to learn. But I am not willing to be force fed that all is well and safe with this stuff just because you say it is.

Cyrus, at the moment you're just pulling crap out of the air.

If it were so safe, why did we put it under a mountain, in leak proof containers that should last 100,000 years?

We haven't even broken ground on the Yucca site, but the reason the permanent storage is currently being studied is because people are ignorant and afraid.

When I say nuclear power is safe, what I am referring to is the fact that no one in the United States not connected with its production has ever died from it. Contrast that with fossil fuels, which kill ~20,000 in the US alone every year.

Now you want to say it’s ok to shoot the stuff into space despite the fact that something might go wrong along the way?

Absolutely. Take an honest look at the risk, Cyrus - don't just base your opinion on fear.

They don’t even allow transport of that stuff through major cities.

We wouldn't be launching it from or near cities. Not a relevant concern.

I’m sorry, I am not buying your argument. I just don’t see any safety in what you propose.

Clearly. But that is because you aren't actually weighing any risks, you are simply reacting to your own fears.

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

 

[chroot]

So now you have a problem that is localized, in significant concentrations.

Wait, wouldn't a localized problem be better than a global problem? You seem to switch sides at will.

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

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

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

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

- Warren

 

[chroot]

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

Would you be opposed to dumping nuclear waste into the Sun? If so, why?

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

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

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding your fears about transportation, here is some interesting reading:

About twenty million packages of all sizes containing radioactive materials are routinely transported worldwide annually on public roads, railways and ships.

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

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

There has never been any accident in which a container with highly radioactive material has been breached, or has leaked.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip51.htm

 

[russ_watters]

I have to agree that sending our nuclear waste into our space is not a very sensible option.

Just to be clear, I want to restate that I agree - mostly for economic reasons. Ie.

My research indicates that there are 441 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, each of which produces about 25-30 tons of high-level waste per year. While this waste is relatively small -- only 3 cubic meters per year -- it is very heavy.

I also read that the US has 52,000 tons in storage now that would also need to be dealt with.

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

Technically possible, but yes - cost prohibitive. Now if that "Orion" thing ever happens... but I won't go off speculating on when/if that would be possible.

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

There is a lot of crackpottery floating around about transmutation at the moment, which is why I'm heasitant to speculate about it - but I'm an optomist and I'd never bet against technology. In 50 years, it may well be a good option.

 

[russ_watters]

As long as you can tell me with 99.9% certainty that that rocket ant going to come down into a city or a water source because of some sort of a fluke in the deisgn, (sorta like NASA mixing up units and crashing on mars), or that they won't make stupid moves because of time constraints and pressures, (sorta like NASA challenger) when dealing with dangerous materials.

99.9%? 1 in a thousand? That's it? Heck, why are we arguing - we're already there?

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

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

1 in a thousand is several orders of magnitude off what the actual likelihood of some of the scenarios you are describing is.

As you said, one launch every other day, would be a daunting strain on NASA to keep up. Not to mention, all those rockets are one time uses. And this is something that we will have to pay for, forever.

Agreed - so then we digress. Back to the point about doing for the next 50 years what we've done for the past 50: Nothing. What's wrong with it?

 

[Cyrus]

Another point. Don't those rockets send stuff into Earth orbit. Wouldn't you need a MUCH bigger rocket to send something to the sun? The satern V was used to go to the moon. I would think something at least as big would be needed for the sun, which is further, unless its easier to go to the sun.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Another point. Don't those rockets send stuff into Earth orbit. Wouldn't you need a MUCH bigger rocket to send something to the sun? The satern V was used to go to the moon. I would think something at least as big would be needed for the sun, which is further, unless its easier to go to the sun.

It would need to be able take a very heavy cargo outside Earth orbit. That in and of itself will take quite a bit as Chroot pointed out. Once to that point though I don't think it would take much more. Just some manuevering thrusters. Set it on a path towards the sun, probably spiralling inward to take advantage of what would more or less be a natural path. That is natural as in it will continue of it's own accord without need for any fuel. It's definitely not a very economic option at this point in time but I really don't think it would take much more to get it on it's way to the sun. Russ or Chroot would likely be more qualified to answer.

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[ComputerGeek]

No Way.

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

 

[Cyrus]

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

I don't think putting trash into orbit is a very appealing idea either

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, we already know that...

 

[Cyrus]

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

 

[WarrenPlatts]

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

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

This technique has been patented in the U.S., Canada and Australia. The process is described in detail here.

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

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

 

[Azael]

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

Anyway it wasnt really a hardcore suggestion. More like maby a possibility in 50 years. I don't se the need to build 100 000 year storage sites.

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

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

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

 

[Azael]

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

 

[russ_watters]

But its sad that you don't care about things like that as well.

Why should I care about dirtying-up space? I already asked you for an explanation and you haven't provided one.

You should want a clean planet for your kids and their kids.

What are you talking about?!? The quote you were responding to said nothing about the planet. But if you haven't gathered it from my posts, my position is that we need to immediately build another 200 nuclear plants to take over the capacity currently in the form of coal. Air pollution is the #1 environmental problem facing the world today.

Its faily obvious the solution to the problem should be strict controls on how much energy we use, and looking for cleaner alternatives when possible.

Obvious to you, but how reasonable is that really? You won't be able to get people to give up heating and air conditioning, which is what would be required to cut our usage in half just to eliminate coal power. Even if you could force it, why would you want to? It would utterly destroy the world economy.

If we *really wanted to* we could, as a nation, drastically reduce our power usage.

Of course - if we really wanted to, we could all stop using electricity altogether. The question isn't what is possible, the question is what is reasonable. It is not reasonable to think we can reduce our energy usage by half without significant alteration of our way of life.

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

 

[Cyrus]

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

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

 

[Orefa]

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

 

[Cyrus]

Words of wisdom.

(Look I am a nice guy see!?)

 

[chroot]

cyrusabdollahi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

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

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

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

I don't think the american way of life is the root of all evil. I think the true lack of any political leadership to do anything serious about the energy problem is the root of the evil. I think the numbers are to the effect that we have less than 5% of the world population but use more energy than any other nation. Granted a lot of that is used in goods. But the way things are going, is anything manufactured in USA anymore? Its all outsourced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[chroot]

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

Do you have some evidence for this claim about American houses being much smaller 50 years ago?

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

Are you aware that Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US? (Source: DOE 2001 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/chapter2.html )

Yeah, I think we should put money into making industry more efficient. They would make more money, and we would use less energy, win-win.

Do you think you're the first person to realize that more efficient industry yeilds greater profits? Do you think industries are not already trying to maximize their efficiency? Do you have any specific methods by which industries should magically increase their efficiency without affecting their economic position, or do you only argue in vague, uninformed, accusatory tones?

Japan, highly industrial, but they are also very careful in how they use their power.

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

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

I agree that we should set an example -- I agree that we, as a nation, could do more to conserve resources. I disagree strongly that there's some magic bullet to be found, or some individual people who deserve to have fingers pointed at them. We happen to live in the most industrialized country in the world, and thus use the most energy. The two go hand-in-hand, and no amount of your enviro-babble cooing (e.g. "Ooh! let's just reduce consumption by 50%! It's not so hard! Let's just eat ice cream in the summer!") is going to cut our energy use in half without affecting every economy on the planet.

- Warren

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Why should I care about dirtying-up space? I already asked you for an explanation and you haven't provided one.

Leaving aside environmental ethics, there are practicle problems with using Earth orbit as a dumping ground. Already Norad keeps track of thousands of manmade space objects, most of which serve no useful function anymore. These are a hazard to space navigation. And if any of the nuclear waste containers collided with each other or something else, they will break apart into hundreds or thousands of smaller particles that increase the threat. We're back to the question of intergenerational ethics again: it's morally wrong that we dump the problem of monitoring thousands of radioactive packages in Earth orbit onto future generations. Moreover, as space travel becomes more common, there would little to prevent a bad guy with a spaceship to go get one of the containers to make nuke bombs or dirty bombs out of. Until a space elevator or something similar is built that can reliably launch trash into the sun, the idea that nuke waste can be sent into space is idle speculation at best.

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

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

One technology that could do this that is right around the corner is LED lighting. These are an order of magnitude more efficient per lumen than incandescent light bulbs. Even florescent lights are now old-fashioned.

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

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

Do you have some evidence for this claim about American houses being much smaller 50 years ago?

Yeah, just drive around some older neighborhoods, and you'll be able to see for yourself.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

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

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

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

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

 

[Orefa]

(Look I am a nice guy see!?)

Sure, and don't sweat it. Disagreements happen, so do agreements. And I don't hold grudges (too heavy).

Canada's per capita energy is 17% larger than that of the US

It's colder up north though. Since economies and lifestyles are very similar, this difference could be just heating costs.

there are practicle problems with using Earth orbit as a dumping ground.

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

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

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

 

[Cyrus]

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

Well, the majority of their electricity is from hydroelectric. We can't say that 60% of our power is from a clean alternative. I got this info from:http://archive.wn.com/2004/11/03/1400/canadaenergy

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

From your own source:

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

As for my mention of Japan,

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

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

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



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

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

 

[WarrenPlatts]

[Subductive waste disposal is] an intriguing concept, but aren't there a lot of unknowns as to what truly happens at the core of the Earth? Have these geological theories been verified? The concern of course is about just throwing our waste in some inaccessible area that is outside our control and assuming that everyting will be fine.

The theory of plate tectonics is one of the most well-confirmed scientific theories known to humankind. There is a lot less disagreement among geologists regarding the reality of plate tectonics than there is among cosmologists regarding the reality of the Big Bang.

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

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

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

 

[chroot]

Well, the majority of their electricity is from hydroelectric.

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

It's colder up north though. Since economies and lifestyles are very similar, this difference could be just heating costs.

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

To a considerable extent, this is because of Canada’s large, hydro-powered aluminum-manufacturing sector.

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

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

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

Perhaps I was not clear. What I was trying to convey was the fact that the standard of living in Japan has gone up significantly in the last ~30 years, while the power consumption has remained relatively neutral.

You really need to brush up on those reading skills before entering these kinds of debates.

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

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

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

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

You have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

if things don't get better, and we are not careful in how we consume, we will have lots of chemical waste accumulating from years and years of dumping unnecessarily.

Chemical waste?? I thought this thread was about nuclear power! Quit trying to change the subject to support your enviro-babble!

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

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

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

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

But cyrusabdollahi had his panties all in a twist about how people could just make such small changes as "wearing layers" to slash heating costs by half.

I never said anything of the sort about Candians, you did. I also never said wearing sweaters would cut it in half, you took my words out of context, thanks. You are putting words in my mouth. Now this is just getting out of hand. I am not going to get into a shouting match with you, that was not my intention. End of discussion, goodbye.

 

[SOS2008]

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

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

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

But if the people have a chooise betwen giving up some quality of life or wanting more nuclear power plants no one would vote no to nuclear power. I sure as hell wouldnt.

I snoozed off there, but to reply to this (and other member's posts), I was referring to population control globally (which would decrease the need to enter richer countries illegally):

Conservative Christian allies of the president are pressing the U.S. foreign aid agency to give fewer dollars to groups that distribute condoms or work with prostitutes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10789265/

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

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

 

[alexandra]

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

I'm not sure, Russ - is anyone, though? I have just heard on news reports that it is a temporary solution, and very capital-intensive in the initial phases of setting up the facilities.

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

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

 

[Orefa]

But I'm no expert in this field; this was just my opinion...

Never think that your opinion is invalid unless you ARE an expert. When only experts in a field are consulted you generally see a bias in favour due to the group's vested interest (look at the health reports sponsored by tobacco companies for illustration purposes). In spite of what some experts may say, non-experts can still voice valid opinions.

 

[Astronuc]

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

I agree with Orefa. The opinion expressed is valid.

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

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

 

[WarrenPlatts]

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

 

[Astronuc]

Ah, but these less invasive and more cost effective technologies tend to be more boring from an engineering perspective.

Not really! There are challenges in obtaining the optimal design for a wind turbine, and pushing the technical limits. Computational fluid dynamics is interesting and challenging whether its a wind turbine or the core of a nuclear reactor.

Take wind power: there is a lot more to it than most people realize--but compare that to a pebble bed nuclear reactor! Think about it: what would you rather work on?

I'd be happy to work on either one. There are engineering/intellectual challenges in both.

There are so many more parts that have to be put together just so. . . . Saying you're a nuclear engineer is so much more fascinating than saying you're a wind farmer.

I never think in those terms.

It's like being a high priest in the old days, you've got this stuff (human souls, radioactive material) that only you can control. You get to speak a different language that only you and your fellow nuclear engineers understand. Such power! And you don't even have to run for office! And the lame politicos have to take your advice because you are the only one who knows the Truth.

Nuclear engineering is just what I do, not who I am. It's a mixed bag. I have done some really incredibly and unbelievably exciting things, I have had worries that most do not, and there is also a lot of mundane work. Actually, I look forward to mundane sometimes.

 

[vanesch]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Astronuc]

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

The nuclear plants keep the grid up.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

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

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

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

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

 

[Cyrus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does it say, sir?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page 14, table 2, residual fuel oils:

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

Page 15, Table 3, Kerosene Usage,

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


Nomenclature: According to the authors of this report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for wearing sweaters warren:

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

What does this show us?

"The warmer than normal winter also contributed to a sharp decline in distillate sales for use in the electric power generation."

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

On to Kerosene,

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

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

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

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


The evidence clearly supports my view Warren.

 

[Cyrus]

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

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

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

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

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

92% went to making power.
All other went to residential, inustrial and commercial.

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

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

Next, let's look at natural gas: Natural Gas Outlook through 2025:

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

I refer you to slide no. 10:

Now look at the chart for 2005.

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

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

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

Furthermore, let's see what the DOE has to say about residential power usage:

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

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

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


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

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

So what exactly is industries share, warren?

industrial: 29%

residential: 36% commercial: 35% transportation 0.5%

I now refer you to another DOE paper:

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

Page 13, table ES: ElectricPower report annual, 2004

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

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


I rest my case.