My reluctant prediction for America's future energy needs.

I'm not sure why you're so afraid of Nuke energy, it's proven to be pretty darn safe, and even though the waste is a problem it's not one that can't be dealt with on an inteligent level. My real question would be where did you get the info on the peak oil thing? a geologic survey released a month or so ago basically said that the planet has vast oceans of oil still untouched and evidence suggest that the earth is still producing the black stuff. There is no oil shortage. The prices are being manipulated by speculators, the oil cartells, and the damn war.

There's already plans for a nuclear plant being built here by the year 2010. And we live on a fault line!

Don Allen said:

I'm not sure why you're so afraid of Nuke energy, it's proven to be pretty darn safe, and even though the waste is a problem it's not one that can't be dealt with on an inteligent level. My real question would be where did you get the info on the peak oil thing? a geologic survey released a month or so ago basically said that the planet has vast oceans of oil still untouched and evidence suggest that the earth is still producing the black stuff. There is no oil shortage. The prices are being manipulated by speculators, the oil cartells, and the damn war.

Click to expand...

There is more oil in this country as yet untapped than most people know.

My husband worked on oil drilling rigs in Oklahoma in the 1980's and they drilled a lot of big wells and then capped them. The oil companies know where they are but most have not been touched.

The Ark-La-Tex region also still has some untapped reserves

The "fear factor" of nuclear power is largely overblown. TMI, despite the hype, was in fact fairly minor. (Yes, I used to live in PA. I've been past TMI on numerous occasions, and have discussed it with a friend of mine who holds a PhD in Nuclear Engineering.)

Cherynobyl was something completely different, incidentally, as it was in effect a nuclear power plant someone had built inside a normal building. Not a good idea. It'd be like putting a refinery in your basement - different fuel source, same potential for disaster.

The major drawback to nuclear power is the waste produce, which is a legitimate concern and raises issues of storage and such. But overall, the power is far cleaner in terms of current concerns, such as emissions, than other comparable sources in terms of the AMOUNT of power you can produce. Solar, wind, and other such sources are of course cleaner, but don't generate anywhere near as much power.

I'd be quite pleased to see us lean toward nuclear power. At the very least, it would signal a shift in our energy policies away from the things that are going to get us into trouble.

Wind power is another power source; in the last year I know of three wind farms in my home state that are providing power.

I also saw something on television about a device that manufactures power using the waves and currents of the ocean or even the Great Lakes.

Solar power is another option; thirty years ago, the local juco here built one of the first solar cars. Later versions were involved in solar car races around the world, one that I remember well (because I was doing the ads and promo work on the local radio station) was in Australia.

There are a lot of alternatives out there. Someone just has to get with the plan and do something workable with one or more of them.

I have no qualms with the safety issues of nuclear power, but aren't there only limited amounts of Uranium-235 occurring in nature? However, Plutonium-239 can be produced from Uranium-238 (which constitutes 99.28% of all naturally-occurring Uranium), though it is a more involved process than refining [SUP]235[/SUP]U.

Probably the biggest problem with nuclear power is similar to that of windmills; people will advocate their use, but when a nuclear waste disposal facility or windmill farm is proposed in their area, they go into fits of rage about imminent domain issues, disruption of the natural environment, etc.

johnnysannie said:

Solar power is another option; thirty years ago, the local juco here built one of the first solar cars. Later versions were involved in solar car races around the world, one that I remember well (because I was doing the ads and promo work on the local radio station) was in Australia.

Click to expand...

Do you have a picture of these cars? I'd like to see them. I didn't know that cars could be completely solar-powered without huge advances in solar cell technology. With the solar energy conversation rates of most cells, they would probably have to be the size of a house in order to power a vehicle.

I look forward to the day when they restart the nuclear energy program.

The solar cars were concept cars only. They could get up to 30, or 40 mph, and could carry their driver only. They were so light that there was danger of being blown off the road by big semi trucks going 70 miles an hour.

When I was a lad, the nature magazine I subscribed to had an article about them. That must have been 20 years ago.

There are more modern versions, but I know nought of them.

And for the record, I think nuclear power is nothing to be afraid of. Chernobyl was caused by the deliberate removal of safety features (they were doing some sort of experiment, I think). When you consider how many people die from coal mining, its pretty safe. More people die in coal mine accidents each year than were killed by Chernobyl (anti-nuke people love to exagerate the death toll. Basically anyone who died of cancer in the Ukraine gets counted as a chernobyl victim). Europe and Japan rely heavily on nuclear energy, and have had few serious accidents. The opposition to Nuclear energy in the USA has led us to fall behind in our experience and technology. We already have a big nuclear plant here in MN. I wouldn't mind seeing another one.

And if the oil runs out, there is still lots of coal. Much money and effort has been spent in recent years to improving the efficiency and reducing pollution of coal fired power plants. And of course there is the well known technique of making synthetic oil from coal.

Sarpedon said:

The solar cars were concept cars only. They could get up to 30, or 40 mph, and could carry their driver only. They were so light that there was danger of being blown off the road by big semi trucks going 70 miles an hour.

When I was a lad, the nature magazine I subscribed to had an article about them. That must have been 20 years ago.

There are more modern versions, but I know nought of them.

Click to expand...

One of the universities, I can't remember which, had a school project for their engineers or whatever to design and race solar cars. Their two biggest problems, solar panels are expensive, and they chip.

One of the cars they did get up to 60 mph, but it also cost a million dollars and the solar panels had to be changed out twice in one trip.

I don't think our solar technology is quite ready for mainstream, maybe someday.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2320

A nice graphic and discussion about the equivalent energy sources needed to replace the amount of energy produced by one cubic mile of oil.

It won't be one technology, it will be a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, Mr. Fusion, and others, plus harder to tap coal, gas, and oil reserves that we can't get to today or it isn't cost effective, plus a radical shift in energy usage, policy and conservation. Tackle the supply AND the demand in sustainable ways, and you've got the solution.

Keeping ahead of the need is the problem - we're still in a reactive mode. We're not quite in a crisis, so there is time to react and be proactive with long term views on strategic energy usage.

You mean the USA could soon be like France?

We'll be selling electricity to Canada (and perhaps giving it away to Mexico), and I'm gonna need a Nuke decal for my Tesla Roadster.

Tanatra said:

Probably the biggest problem with nuclear power is similar to that of windmills; people will advocate their use, but when a nuclear waste disposal facility or windmill farm is proposed in their area, they go into fits of rage about imminent domain issues, disruption of the natural environment, etc.

Click to expand...

It's lose lose! Can't build nuclear because people are afraid, can't use wind because people complain about the noise(!), can't use solar because the cells are so expensive, and yet people will yell and scream that something has to be done because they are paying so much for gas.

Tanatra said:

I have no qualms with the safety issues of nuclear power, but aren't there only limited amounts of Uranium-235 occurring in nature? However, Plutonium-239 can be produced from Uranium-238 (which constitutes 99.28% of all naturally-occurring Uranium), though it is a more involved process than refining [SUP]235[/SUP]U.

Probably the biggest problem with nuclear power is similar to that of windmills; people will advocate their use, but when a nuclear waste disposal facility or windmill farm is proposed in their area, they go into fits of rage about imminent domain issues, disruption of the natural environment, etc.



Do you have a picture of these cars? I'd like to see them. I didn't know that cars could be completely solar-powered without huge advances in solar cell technology. With the solar energy conversation rates of most cells, they would probably have to be the size of a house in order to power a vehicle.

Click to expand...

I could post one but I have yet to figure out how to post pics here. If someone gives me step by step directions, I would be happy to post a pic!

Sarpedon said:

The solar cars were concept cars only. They could get up to 30, or 40 mph, and could carry their driver only. They were so light that there was danger of being blown off the road by big semi trucks going 70 miles an hour.
.
.

Click to expand...

True enough but the concept worked and could be adapted for a broader use for the general population.

I think it would be better to focus the effort on electric cars, and generate the electricity centrally, which would be more efficient. Not to mention that the infrastructure to distribute electricity is already in place.

My guess is that we're in for a major reconfiguring of where and how we live and work. For the huge majority of human history, the idea of living in an area where you were 40 minutes from your workplace and 30 minutes from the closest place to get foodstuffs would've seemed absurd. In another 50 years, it may seem just as absurd. The shift will be gradual but definite.

Don Allen said:

I'm not sure why you're so afraid of Nuke energy, it's proven to be pretty darn safe, and even though the waste is a problem it's not one that can't be dealt with on an inteligent level. My real question would be where did you get the info on the peak oil thing? a geologic survey released a month or so ago basically said that the planet has vast oceans of oil still untouched and evidence suggest that the earth is still producing the black stuff. There is no oil shortage. The prices are being manipulated by speculators, the oil cartells, and the damn war.

Click to expand...

You know nuke energy (I like that phrase) has come leaps and bounds since three mile...our older plants are way out of date.

It's a better source...that and hydrogen...we can't rely on bio fuels...we need that land for actual FOOD.

Edit: Solar works better in some places than other...it can't be used by itself. Wind is an excellent source.

Ok, I'll give it a try.....(fingers crossed)

there is no real danger of impending peak oil.
new research suggests, as mentioned above, that oil is both more plentiful than the chicken littles say and a resource that the earth creates (i.e. we're not just sucking up the remains of a finite number of dinosaurs)
nuclear power is relatively safe now and can be made far safer.

William Haskins said:

there is no real danger of impending peak oil.
new research suggests, as mentioned above, that oil is both more plentiful than the chicken littles say and a resource that the earth creates (i.e. we're not just sucking up the remains of a finite number of dinosaurs)
nuclear power is relatively safe now and can be made far safer.

Click to expand...

Do you have some resources for the oil resource, William? That sounds like an interesting read.