Not a member? Register Now. * Required
Alternative Energy Solution
posted by Dennis Huber on 6/14/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
While some forms of alternative energy may prove to be cost effective some day, we need to use the energy sources we have today to make the energy we need to grow our economy. We have been conserving energy since the 70s. We are not going to save energy to get of the the global situation we are in. We need more sources of power, in particular new nuclear power plants. We can reprocess the nuclear fuel and destroy the long lived isotopes in a burner reactor. The French are doing this safely - so can we. Clean coal is years away. Smart grid is a catchy name but will not save energy unless we completely rebuild our transmission and distribution networks. That will cost more moeny than we have. Nuclear power will produce electricity without any CO2 emmissions, and it can produce hydrogen to allow us to move to a clean source of power for our automobiles. As old fossil plants are decomissioned and as new demand for electric power is identified, we can meet both of these needs with clean nuclear power.
view all 4 replies respond to this comment
posted by robo on 6/15/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Nukes will never be viable, they're too massive and take too long to deploy. It'd take 15 years or more to get permits, front money for construction, and putting the manpower in place and then the time to actually build them. Most of the demand is coming from the 'baby boom' generation and most of them will be dead in 15-20 years. The new nukes use lithium which competes with the global consumer demand for portable electric power using lithium ion and the newer lithium polymer batteries, and the electric automobile market using lithium ion batteries. According to reports almost half of the world's supply of the highest grade lithium has already been used. What would we do if we built all these nuke dinos and didn't have the lithium to fire them? The nuke industry has taken $50 billion + out of the public's pocket for each of the last 30 + years trying to develop 'cheap, non polluting' electric power and still can't deliver a fusion containment. If each of the world's governments would allocate just 10% of their budget they have for developing fusion and INSTEAD put the money into 'multi-wavelength' photovoltaic’s we'd have massive amounts of cheap, renewable, short time to market, and INDIVIDUAL electric power. Even though Einstein is known for developing nukes and E=MC*C, he saw the 'light' and got his Nobel Prize for inventing the photoelectric effect E=hv. He saw that solar is the obvious choice. The fact is that those that control the oil market won't be able to control the solar market because with solar there is NO NEED to deliver the power, it's generated right at your own home! These oil giants are purposely holding the public away from having the best alternative because they can't control it!
respond to this comment
Nuclear Power
posted by treefarm on 6/22/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I agree with Dennis that nuclear power is at present the most cost effective way to decrease the unhealthy emissions that our current electrical producers are adding to our environment. Clean coal if even possible is likely going to be very costly. Wind and solar in the right places will be cost effective but building huge windmill farms in the ocean seems unrealistic mainly from a maintenance issue. Using wave power on the other hand does appear to have good potential. I question all the concern about CO2 that is produced by humans and a great deal of the other climate warming theories. Another several years of high sun spot activity and we will be trying to figure out how to warm things up.
posted by shelly on 6/23/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I think this have to be good but I am concern about radition (sp?)
posted by treefarm on 6/25/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Yes I think everyone is concerned about the long term effects of storing radioactive waste, but the amount of waste is relatively small and much cheaper to bury then continuing to rely on oil and other fossil fuels. If your concern is a repeat of 3-mile Island, that is always a possibility but we have come along way technology wise since then.
Need for increased action
posted by Michael_O on 6/11/2009 - This comment was recommended 3 times
I believe that action on climate is urgent and technology offers substantial promise for addressing long term energy needs and meeting carbon reduction goals. I also think that we must be willing to share the cost of investing now in order to avoid costlier climate impacts later. At the same time, I question the feasibility of quickly achieving the scale that is needed to replace our existing energy infrastructure. Given this, I believe we can and must do much more now with “low hanging fruit” such as energy efficiency while we work out the strategies for broader energy transition.
view all 5 replies respond to this comment
Increased energy efficiency
posted by Sid on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I am not sure that increasing all matters of energy efficiency can be considered "low hanging fruit", but the neat thing about increasing energy efficiency is it can be done now. By doing this energy can be reduced. Reduced energy means it has a payback for the investment and reduced energy consumption also means reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy will be great to look forward towards happening, but the cost of infastructure and the time to get it all into place will take more than a bit of time. Energy efficiency is mostly related towards electricity. A lot of these items are considered low hanging fruit items. I would like you to also consider increasing Natural Gas energy efficiency. This is not quite a low hanging fruit, but almost 50% of all natural gas consumed is wasted into the atmosphere as HOT energy. This is a lot of unnecessary waste. This hot energy can be recovered and utilized. Then all that would be vented into the atmosphere is cool exhaust. Again, increased energy efficiency will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions vented into the atmosphere. Natural gas is even used to produce a lot of our electricity. Natural gas is used to provide to you almost everything you eat, drink, wear, travel in, and to keep warm and cool.
http://www.sidelsystems.com
"Low Hanging Fruit" AKA 2005 *Chevron* STudy of Wax Based Lubes
posted by WA3ZGT on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I agree that we must do all we can to stretch our existing fossil fuel supplies to buy us time to transition to sustainable, less polluting energy sources. As an example of how to do this, simply Google Chevron's *own* lubetek@chevron.com ! A 2005 study found that slippery wax based car engine lubricants would save drivers as much as 20 % in costs of gasoline. The study also used recycled plastic water bottles, literally killing two environmental problems at one time. I Called Lube Tek, and they confirmed the study's findings. Of couse, would Chevon ever cut their own profits by 20 % ?? Of course not !! The real question, then, is how to get the big oil companies to do what is right long term, and ignore the short term impact. I think it is Chevron's turn to respond to their own WEB Site and tell us how to do this !