Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I do agree that nuclear power is one of the better options, environmental, but it takes the greatest care. That accident at Three Mile Island could have been far worse. As it is, half of the nuclear fuel had melted into the bottom of the containment vessel.

Additionally, we need to resolve the question of nuclear waste, both for environmental and security reasons.

There’s little room for error with nuclear materials. If the cooling system in a nuclear reactor fails, the heat from the runaway reaction can melt the fuel, and the fuel can melt into the ground. If that happens, then we have a meltdown. If the places where we store the nuclear waste leak, it’s not so bad, but it’s still going to kill and sicken people.

Either way, you have radioactive isotopes in the environment that can linger in the environment for hundreds if not thousands of years. This isn’t like an oil spill, where damage can be healed in decades, and the waste products decomposed by chemical or biological means. Here, the damage is permanent in terms of our civilization.

Let’s take a look at Yucca Flats: supposedly, we can dump the nation’s nuclear waste here, and not have it leak into groundwater, or suffer damage in an Earthquake. If these things are not the case, then dumping our nuclear waste here could permanently contaminated a large area.

This is not a question of body counts, this is a question of sustainable civilization. You can remove the electric current in a power line in an instant, the structure itself in weeks or even days. Nuclear waste or meltdown contaminants will linger for many lifetimes. The magnitude of the errors possible with nuclear power commands clarity of thought and care of execution beyond other sources of energy. We should not be phobic about dealing with it, but we should certainly not treat it so lightly as your article’s tone suggests. It is only because Nuclear Power is so heavily regulated and standards are kept so high that nuclear accidents have claimed no American lives at todays’s power powerplants.

I would prefer Nukes myself. I propose we deposit the waste near Jack’s House. I am sure he won’t mind.

Seriously though. The problem with 100 year half-lives is that very soon we will run out of room.

Stephen

Regulations – yes.

Caution – of course.

Nuclear power is the only way we have to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. If global warming is a serious problem that we need to address, we need to address it.

Aldous

I would rather own a house next to a nuclear plant than next to a coal plant. If you agree to have the coal mine near your house, I will be happy to have the nuclear storage near mine. The proximity to a nuclear plant would not affect my decision to build or buy a house.

All of the country’s nuclear power plants together produce about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel annually. To put this in perspective, all the used fuel produced to date by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in more than 40 years of operation—some 40,000 metric tons—would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about five yards, if the fuel assemblies were stacked side by side and laid end to end.

Besides, it is possible (although currently not done in the U.S.) to recycle the spent fuel.

Stephen,

“As it is, half of the nuclear fuel had melted into the bottom of the containment vessel.”

This is true Stephen. That is what it was designed to do, go into the containment vessel. We are not Russia. We regulate and have strict protocols and safety systems. Operating a Nuclear power plant is one of the safest industrial operations. Has anyone noticed the number of gas refinery fires over the past decade. It’s unbelievable.

The waste issue is the biggest problem. We should be building breeder reactors. These will enable us to take what’s left out of spent fuel elements and reuse some portion. I agree with Jack that compared to other energy sources the nuclear waste is significantly less. Safe storage of spent fuel is the key. I work in the operational end of nuclear power, not the waste end. However, from what I understand from my collegues this is not as big of an issue as people think.

The biggest problem with nuclear power is public perception. Without educating the public about the benefits of nuclear power as well as how the dangers are handled (which, by the way is excellent) the public perception won’t change.

I think in the long run the fuel cell will be an excellent energy source. However, as Jack also said, nuclear power plants could help make this a cost effective solution.

The air quality would be tremendously improved by relying more on Nuclear power, especially if later coupled with fuel cells.

One of the biggest problems, which I think someone touched on, is the oil and coal lobby. Remember, our country is run by those who can buy pollitical votes. These two lobbies can certainly do that and have no gain seeing the public become educated to the benifits of nuclear or hydrogen energy.

Tom L:

How dare you criticize the Oil and Coal Lobby!!! These are among Bush Junior’s biggest supporters. Bush himself recently encouraged the use of coal as a clean energy alternative. You are clearly in error on your facts. I suggest you review the RNC memo again. It clearly states that its those environmental treehugger’s fault!!! The Oil Lobby is your friend. Remember that or the RNC might lose its brib… err… Contribution!!!

There is no safe or clean way to produce energy, just choices among better or worse alternatives.

I presume you mean no safe or clean way to produce energy of the amount needed by our society at this time? Otherwise I would bring up solar, hydroelectric, and similar technologies.

Nuke energy is clean and safe if we can work on getting rid of spent fuel.

No need to “reinvent the wheel” for our energy needs, just find a good way to dispose of the scrap tires, so to speak.

Heating oil/gas is getting so expencive that people are going back to firewood as the main heating fuel. Thats not as clean as the forms of heating energy we used for the past 40yrs.

Pissing around for another 20yrs for a vialable, cost effective form of energy will only make things worse as far as air quality goes.

Hell, people are even starting to heat with coal again! Most woodburners will also run on coal, and guess what folks.. no expencive air scrubbers on that home heating chiminy.

Some people need to click off the disney channel and tune in to reality. People cant afford their heating costs now, they wont freeze for 20yrs waiting for the gerbil powered clean fuel gizmo to come online!
Start building nuke plants as fast as we can!

As I see it, there are three primary problems with nuclear power on a global level: the really serious difficulty of nuclear waste, the threat of terrorism aimed at nuclear plants or that uses nuclear waste, and the fact that it becomes difficult to ensure that facilities producing nuclear fuels don’t also wind up producing materials that can be used in nuclear weapons.

The first two points are most important for U.S. domestic energy, but we need to realize the international implications. That is, if the U.S. embraces nuclear power to the same extent as, say, France, the rest of the world will likely follow. It potentially becomes a proliferation issue.

More environmentalists in the developed world are beginning to take a second look at nuclear power, largely on the say so of James Lovelock, the scientist who arrived at the “Gaia theory” and who sees nuclear as the best bet for reducing global warming.

My own thoughts on this are similar to Stephen’s. This needs to be done with great care, if we do it at all. I like the idea of a hydrogen economy but think it has, at least in the short term, a pie-in-the-sky feel to it. We could conserve a great deal more oil in the short term if we simply relied on current technologies (let’s say hybrids that could also be plugged into the electrical grid) plus conservation efforts. Alas, this requires real political clout and leadership, the likes of which we’re unlikely to see anytime soon.

I’ll bet if we had more nukes that gas prices wouldn’t be as high as they are because of reduced demand for oil.
We should’ve never quit building nukes just because Teddy don’t like them. One mishap doesn’t make the whole nuclear industary unsafe.
I say let’s build them as fast as we safely can.
Wouldn’t bother me non to have one in my back yard.

One word my frinds…Chernobyl. The Russian government STILL has not admitted the death and total decimation of the downwind effects from this blast.
Older plant, yes. Safety precautions, probably not the best. More advanced tech nowadays, a given. Destructive capabilities, much more powerful.

Big Kahuna,

Chernobyl was a total different design then the plants we operate. On top of that the operators violated their protocol and procedures by “bypassing” their scram circuit (emergency shutdown).

Nuclear power is safer than any energy choice we have. We have been operating nuclear plants throughout the U.S. since Three Mile Island. Have you heard of an accident? No, because they are safe. You take a bigger risk driving to work or flying on vacation or breathing you “coal-polluted” air.

Reed,

weapons grade Uranium is highly enriched. Commercial grade is not even close. If governments want to use nuclear energy to supply their energy needs who are we to tell them they can’t?

And believe it or not terrorist attacks are part of a nuclear plants design basis. They design in such a manner so that a plane flying into the plant can’t cause public harm and that goes for bombs as well. The oil industry hasn’t done this, nor will they. The nuclear industry has done it because of Federal Regulation given by the NRC and DOE. Oil won’t be regulated because it may eat into their precious proffits. A strategically placed bomb near a large dam would do the public some harm as well. Nuclear is the safest energy supply available.

Tom L-
I know the containment vessel is made for that purpose, but even reinforced concrete can fail in the face of molten Uranium. We’re lucky the failures weren’t so severe that there wasn’t any water left to cool the remainder.

We need to acknowledge the possibility of failure, and design our failsafes along those lines. Nuclear Reactors are machines, and machines can break down. We need to be prepared for that.

You are right in that Chernobyl was a different kind of reactor, and that the operators screwed up on the system. That said, our own reactors have their potential problems, and the risks of a catastrophic episode at a reactor are much greater than a refinery explosion, in terms of long term damage.

You are also correct in that fuel grade Uranium is much less enriched than weapons grade. However, it produces plutonium byproducts that can be reprocessed to create weapons grade material. Iran, I believe, is doing things this way, and perhaps even North Korea as well.

The thing to understand about this in terms of terrorism, though, is that enrichment is an industrial process. You can’t do this in any little rinky-dink lab.

Nuclear fission is a relatively bad idea, and it’s not necessary, since we have better alternatives (see below).

Nuclear fission power proponents frequently tout nuclear power as a limitless supply of energy powered by a fuel that never runs out. However:
[1] Nuclear fission plants are extremely expensive to build.
[2] Nuclear fission plants have the potential for catastrophic environmental and human disaster (e.g. Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.)
[3] Nuclear fission plants create large amounts of hazardous, environmentally toxic radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for centuries.

Based on just the above 3 points, nuclear fission energy plants are the worst option.

However, should fusion (not fission) plants become a reality some day, then nuclear fusion plants would become a viable and attractive option.

Otherwise, there are other better options for alternative fuels.
For non-transportation energy needs, convert all fossil fuel power plants to either biofuel or ethanol burning plants.

Advantages:
(a) biofuel is fuel made from soy beans, mustard seed, palm seed, coconuts, rapeseed, waste vegetable oils and animal fats. It is non-flammable,non-explosive, biodegradable, non-toxic and significantly reduces harmful emissions.
(b) ethanol is an alcohol distilled from various plants, but most frequently from sugar cane, sugar beets and corn. It is biodegradable and significantly reduces harmful emissions.
(c) biofuels and ethanol use will eliminate our power plants’ reliance on petroleum imports and thus insulate our energy production from outside supply and price fluctuations.
(d) biofuels and ethanol use will reduce our balance of payment deficits.
(e) biofuels and ethanol use will benefit our farmers and create domestic jobs.
(f) this can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time without the need for new technology or any disruption of our current food crop production.

The following conversions should also take place simultaneously:
(1) domestic and industrial use of natural gas for cooking and heating should be phased out and conversion made to electricity.
(2) domestic and industrial use of petroleum heating oil should be phased out and conversion made to electricity.
(3) it may be necessary to regulate energy production, since unmitigated corporate greed can lead to unreliable service and unreasonable prices.

Car, bus and truck exhaust also account for a significant amount of the air pollution and greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

Two thirds of all petroleum used in the U.S. is for transportation (cars, buses, trucks), which account for a much of the air pollution and greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

The government, if they could ever bring themselves to do anything worthwhile, of net benefit to society (One”>we may need to help them), should decisively take action to eliminate our dependence on oil (especially foreign oil), which represents a serious national security issue, damage to the environment, health hazards, and it is running out, and we’re running out of time.

Also, the auto companies have demonstrated time and time again that the only way they will make changes is if they are forced. And the oil industry won’t do it themselves. They, for obvious reasons, will continue to oppose any such change. But, wouldn’t it be grand indeed, if we were no longer at the mercy of middle eastern oil producing countries?

STEP 1: The government must immediately mandate significantly higher fuel efficiency standards; standards high enough to require a switch to all hybrid vehicles production within 3 years.
STEP 2: The Government must prohibit the manufacture of gasoline engine cars or even gasoline engine hybrids. The prohibition would take effect within 3 years. This is a serious issue of health and national security.
STEP 3: The government will contract corporation(s), in competition, to produce biodiesel from algae. There are certain species of algae that have an oil content of over 50%. Algae production ponds can be built on arid or semi-arid land that cannot be used for farming. Even better, the algae thrive on human and animal waste, so the production ponds can have the further benefit of waste processing.

If an all-out effort were made, it is likely that the United States could completely eliminate its dependence on oil and gas within 5 years. The many benefits of biodiesel have already been pointed out and the strategic and economic benefits of being self sufficient for all our transportation and energy needs should not be minimized.

Also, research should continue on other potential energy sources to replace all use fossil fuels:
[X] fusion
[X] geothermal
[X] solar
[X] hydrogen
[X] tidal forces
[X] biomass/biofuels

it produces plutonium byproducts that can be reprocessed to create weapons grade material. Iran, I believe, is doing things this way

Yes, that’s my (admittedly amateur) understanding as well.

The thing to understand about this in terms of terrorism, though, is that enrichment is an industrial process. You can’t do this in any little rinky-dink lab.

Again, I agree with that but with two caveats. First, centrifuge technologies make the enrichment process easier and less costly than in the past. Second, the real danger is the selling of such materials to terrorists on the black market. The more nations that can enrich, the more likely this scenario is to occur and the less likely we are to be able to trace the product back to its source, thereby reducing the deterence effect. I think.

They design in such a manner so that a plane flying into the plant can’t cause public harm and that goes for bombs as well.

Tom L,

I’m very glad to hear you say so but I remain fairly skeptical. I imagine that having a very large, well-placed explosion in a nuclear plant would cause a pretty unpredictable scenario. There’s some scary stuff from various Internet sources (the Three Mile Island Alert, for example) about this, but I’m frankly not knowledgeable enough to judge what’s credible. Let’s just say I’ve had enough experience with socalled experts that I wouldn’t put total faith in anyone with a stake in the industry.

All your suggestions start with the wrong phrase – “the government must”

Remember the last time the government tried to solve an energy problem. The Carter era Synfuels initiative is still with us. It no doubt created a lot of pollution, but not much energy. Big firms and individuals still get their tax deductions.

All these renewable you mention are either being developed or don’t work at this time. Some of them will be very good, but not yet.

Ethanol etc is another tax dodge. It cost as much or more energy to make a gallon of ethanol as it gives. That is why – after all these years – it still requires tax breaks and government mandates. The Brazilians have had some success with ethanol from sugar cane, but the economics are a little different.

Not only that, think of the additional acreage we will have to cultivate to produce the energy crops. You know that you cannot produce these things in sufficient quantity without the use of chemical fertilizers and insecticides. So figure in not only the displacement of forests and wildlife, but chemical pollution into the cost of renewable crops.

Nuclear will not be the only form of energy we will use, but it must be a bigger part of the mix. Anyone who is afraid of the consequences of global warming must support nuclear power. Anyone who wants a cleaner environment while at the same time keeping a good standard of living must support nuclear power. Those that relish the benefits of a collapse of modern society can be against it.

There are no perfect sources. That includes solar, wind, tidal and hydro. All we can do is design the optimal mix.

Jack, come up with a safe guaranteed plan for disposing of nuclear waste and then come talk to Americans about new nuclear power plants. Until then, nuclear energy is just another swap of environmental tragedy waiting to happen for cheap energy.

David

We don’t have a plan to safely mine and burn coal. Our dependence on oil makes us concerned with areas of the globe that no sane person would otherwise consider. Our great dams change ecosystems. Even woodstoves stink up the local district and windmills whack bats and birds. All energy production has its problems. Nuclear power has less than most.

I am waiting for solar etc to come on line. I looked into solar. For my small house, it would cost me $51,000. That just takes care of the lights and appliances in a home. I also don’t know how long the system would function. Maybe a big ice storm would cost me $51,000. And what about transportation and industries?

Please forgive me but I have to make one partisan statement (joke):

More people have died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than in all the nuclear accidents in U.S. history. We could have saved more lives by taking away Teddy’s car keys.

And we have better alternatives.

Dan

we know about those alternatives and they are being developed. Ethanol is one of the governments bigger and less effective programs. It has a very strong chapion in the form of Arthur Daniels Midland and the fact the Iowa is so important in picking presidential nominees. That doesn’t mean it works.

Biomass - you know what that is, piles of biological waste. We can use it near where it is produced, but it is not efficient and expensive to move.

Nice ideas. Don’t solve the problem.

There are no perfect sources. That includes solar, wind, tidal and hydro. All we can do is design the optimal mix.

True. But the “energy source” focus is too simplistic for the 21st century. The biggest potential gains in the short term come from existing technologies, especially in the transportation industry. This is where government involvement and leadership might be extremely powerful, helping the U.S. reduce its energy security risks.

It cost as much or more energy to make a gallon of ethanol as it gives.

Sorry to say that this is my understanding as well.

Any time someone says the government must do it scares the bejeevers out of me. The government always messes up and causes the situation to worsen with their problem solving and additional costs to the problem solving to solve the problem solving.
For the present time nuclear energy has proven to be a safe and proven means of energy.
Ethanol and Biofuels still emit byproducts into the air and if we should go to those exclusively nobody knows what the atmosphere will be like because it has never been tried. Kinda like the aerosol can. The release of spray from aerosol cans is so weakened by the time it is five miles up that there is basically no damage done. Yet there has been the Naderite approach to remove the aerosol can from our society.
The use of nuclear energy releases nothing but steam into the atmosphere. No other combustible use can honestly claim that.
The use solar energy is the only other one that does not release byproducts into the atmosphere of the resources presently available.
I use solar to run devices that require the little wall converters and similar products for energy that require 12vdc. I will expand the use later when some break through occurs to bring the price down. It cost me about $1100 to put the 12vdc solar system into place. That for me is a start.
The terrorist issue is basically a non issue.
Security at nuclear plants is very high. It would be almost next to impossible to just enter a nuclear facility and do any damage internally. If someone were to become an employee there with the express purpose of damaging the facility, that too would be extremely difficult to pull off. The structure is constructed in such a way that, as previously stated, an airplane could not penetrate the building, nor just about any other device designed to penetrate the building.
So I am for nuclear and solar energy and keeping the government out of the pix.

Jack, we couldn’t disagree more. If we could reduce our consumption, that is the safest energy of all. Geothermal energy conservation (earth berming buildings for example) not only radically reduces heating and cooling costs, but, actually involves cheaper construction methodology and materials. This is just one example.

Have you ever picked up your water hose at noon while it was sitting in the sun and felt the temp of the water coming through that hose? Voila. Solar water heaters pay for themselves and are easily installed by plumbers.

Hybrid vehicles. South facing homes in the North, and E-W orientation homes in the South with generous roof overhangs are some passive ways to conserve energy.

If we did these things, if the Gov’t. got behind a public awareness and advertising campaign for such measures to increase demand for them, we would not need to consider increasing energy resources. Corporate interests and profits are driving the energy agenda, and they are doing so in ways that will cost consumers, not save consumers, in ways that have enviromental costs, instead of ways that have little to no environmental costs. And Republicans view Gov’t. as partner to corporations and therefore, energy is not being handled in the ways I describe above and for the benefit or our society - only for the benefit of energy shylocks.

Jack, I agree with you. We’d be better off with careful development of nuclear energy, and I think it should be a component of any solution to reduce CO2 emission and global warming.

On the other hand, it will be many years before nukes have any real impact, and we need to realize that other solutions will be needed before then - alternative energy sources and conservation.

We also should realize that the possibility of catastrophe does exist. Like on many issues, I’d be much happier if our energy policy was being implemented by men that are willing to rewrite science to fit their political goals.

So I am for nuclear and solar energy and keeping the government out of the pix.

Tom,

The government is already in the biz. There’s no way of changing that. Its regulations and infrastructure decisions, not to mention the military and policy decisions based on energy needs, dramatically influence U.S. energy usage. If the Powers That Be made even small improvements - such as requiring better gas mileage for vehicles or instituting better conservation measures in building codes - a lot of progress could be made. It’d also be nice if there was more R&D money and some tax rebates set aside for solar, but let’s not get too dreamy.

Thermal electricity generating plants use a heat source to create live steam, which spins a turbine, that turns a dynamo blah blah blah to generate the electricity we need for our homes and businesses.

Coal, oil, gas and uranium can be consumed/burnt to create that heat source.

Yet attractive alternative heat sources do exist. The most obvious is the sun (yawn). If a utility company can use mirrors to focus its rays - there’s your heat source for the thermal power station. This is technology that has been in commercial operation for years, but, for the forseeable future, it cannot replace the other methods of electricity generation… because “what happens when the sun goes down” every night ?

But wait ! There is ANOTHER inexhaustable source of heat, a whole lot closer than the sun. It has long been known that the earth has a molten core where extreme temperatures exist. Similarly, the temperature of rock formations just 2 miles below our feet can exceed 200 degrees celsius, which is more than enough to produce the steam needed to run a semi-conventional thermal power plant.

Google over to the GeoDynamics website to see how an Australian start up company has used simple oil drilling methods to obtain an inexhaustable source of steam - suitable for spinning a turbine and producing electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, without creating any emmissions or producing any intractable (eg. nuclear) waste OR requiring miners to risk their lives every day as they dig for our finite reserves of coal.

This is a no brainer. Existing U.S. oil drilling technology can be redirected to drill for deep steam in suitable hot rock formations. Let’s do it now, and not wait until foreigners have sucked our foreign exchange reserves dry, via our habit of importing an endless (HA !) river of crude oil at $50 bucks a barrel.

OK. I too get very worried when ever someone says “government must do” this or that.

However, all government has to do in this case is pass some laws. I know, I know. Easier said that done.

But, we’ve got to start somewhere, and have a smidgen of hope for some minute amount of trust and cooperation.

Also, the biofuel solution is one of the few solutions that requires only minor modifications to existing engines and vehicles. Hydrogen, electric, etc. all require new vehicles, or drastic modifications.

And, this nation really builds stupid houses. In fact, they seem to be built about as inefficiently as possible.

Don’t be too quick to discard biofuels, because that may be the only viable solution when we start running out of gasoline, because China and India are competing with us to buy more and more of a disappearing fuel source.

At any rate, we can prepare now, or wait until we’re forced into it. The former would be preferable, and the later will be very painful. It may lead to blackouts, riots, and civil unrest. Remember the lines at the gas pumps in the 70’s and 80’s. It will be much worse the next time, since our dependence is larger, and there’s much more increased competition seeking the same shrinking resource.

Yet attractive alternative heat sources do exist. The most obvious is the sun (yawn). If a utility company can use mirrors to focus its rays - there’s your heat source for the thermal power station.

Yes, I’ve seen that, and it looks very promising. Mirrors can focus an increadible amount of energy at a single point. The mirrors can even be programmed to focus and follow the sun.

Kris, Thanks for the insights into the hot, dry rock geothermal idea. I can’t tell how financially viable the idea is, but it is interesting.

>There is no safe or clean way to produce energy

Well, in typical fashion, you just make this stuff up as you go along…

short of, say, a wind vane falling on you, what is unsafe about wind power? Short of burning your hand on the cell, what is unclean about solar power? Shall I go on doofus?

[Jeff, dispense with the doofus insults or find another place to share your comments. Around here, we critique the message, NOT the messengers. — WatchBlog Manager —

d.a.n,

“At any rate, we can prepare now, or wait until we’re forced into it.”

You said it right there! Unfortunately, we are a society of consumers. Maybe some of us try to conserve but for the most part we are consumers. This is why I think the government needs to get involved in this situation. If not, we will wait until we’re forced into it. Maybe they could pass some laws and combine them with very attractive tax rebates or incentives. I, too, generally don’t like big brother telling me what to do. However, when the public as a whole may suffer big brother should get involved.

They are already involved in Nuclear Power Generation. Although they don’t operate the plants (with the exception of TVA), they are a very good oversight in the NRC. They have worked with commercial plants to ensure they are safe and have a very good communication system to ensure all problems are identified to EVERY plant.

I believe we should both conserve and build more nuclear power plants. Even if we conserve our population growth will result in the need for additional power.

I tire of funding the Middle East with our addiction of black gold. I realize we will always need it, but to the extent we use it now?

Hydrogen power is closer than many of you may think. There’s a Canadian company called Baldor that is seriously working on motors powered by hydrogen. There is also an American company called Fuel Cell Energy that is making small fuel cell stations that can be used to power neigborhood or a plant. They actually have several of their units out in the field. It will require increased demand for cost to come down. With help from Uncle Sam this could happen. In addition, Governor swartzneiger (sp?) is plannig on placing many hydrogen refuel stations throughout California. Some see the problem. Hopefully the left and right can come together on this issue.

Tom

Do you mean Ballard? I used to own stock and lost a fair amount of money. That is emblematic of the whole problem. There are lots of good ideas and many good ideas have been implemented. But most don’t really work and even the ones that do take time. I have sometimes put my investments were my ideals or hope should have been and it has cost me money. A lot of those good ideas that are going to solve the energy problem don’t pan out.

David,

I agree about houses. Ideally we would build with some foresight. But there are a couple of important constraints. Most important is that the housing stock doesn’t turn over that fast. A home built before 1980 is usually an energy sieve. Some built after are not much better. We can’t just tear them down and replace them all. Beyond that, on some lots you don’t have room for berms are situated on north-facing slopes. In a reasonably dense population, you can’t just ignore anything that tilts in the wrong direction.

Jack,

Yes Ballard. I also lost money in their securities. However, they are still in business and have several contracts with major Auto manufacturers. I think the reason I lost money was WHEN I invested. However, Ballard did struggle financially there for a while. I think they will be around a while.

Hydrogen is the future. Unfortunately, the key word in that last sentence is “future”. We need to act now.

I agree with you about hydrogen, but the question is when? And how will the hydrogen be produced? We need a big source of power. Nuclear- maybe?

And how will the hydrogen be produced?

Yes, hydrogen isn’t actually a source of energy but an energy storage strategy. It’s a good idea and perhaps it will, as Tom L suggests, take off faster than I believe. But it won’t create new energy.

The right and left can come together on these energy questions to make sure the pols do the right thing. I think this means basic, common sense approaches using available or perfectly workable technologies.

As in: “I’ll buy into the creation of some new nuclear plants if you’ll buy into higher CAFE standards. I’ll support emissions trading if you support more tax rebates for solar or hybrids. I’ll support pluggable hybrids if you’ll support giving GM more corporate welfare in terms of their healthcare benefit expenses.” Etc.

There could be some ugly Congressional horsetrading but it could be done if we had someone with the vision to establish the goals.

>[Jeff, dispense with the doofus insults or find another place to share your comments. Around here, we critique the message, NOT the messengers. — WatchBlog Manager —

I like the rules here. Apparently, it is OK to say that “The Democrats in this country should be put in prison. They are the United States worst enemies”

but to call someone a “doofus” is beyond the pale.

This is tangiential to the discussion, but some of the problems with disposal of the nuclear waste are that the western states where the sites are going to be located don’t want to be the garbage cans for the country. The way it looks there, easterners get abundant energy from nuclear, and westerners get to sit on the waste. It’s not just a NIMBY phenomenon, it’s enforced placement of waste in somebody else’s backyard. Add that to the nuclear testing fallout and the releases of chemical weapons near population centers, and the people in Utah and Nevada don’t have much confidence that the feds have thier best interests at heart when it comes to nuclear. Nuclear waste storage needs to not only be safe, but not to pollute areas that don’t directly benefit from the energy that is produced.

Jeff Seltzer, critiquing political parties is fine. Insulting other participants on this site is not permitted, since it does not foster our objectives to inform through debate and perspective. Flame fests are common on other sites. If that is your cup of tea, order it up on those sites, not here.

Jack, the average lifespan of a house today is somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 or 70 years if that long, (of course it varies greatly by locale). But, we have known of these energy saving building techniques since the late ‘60’s and early 70’s.

But, they have largely been implemented only by individual owner-builders. That is the short-sightedness that is America. We have lost our ability to take long range preemptive measures. Today, we could have half the homes in this country built by the energy saving techniques I described. You can’t capitalize on the benefits until you begin building to reap the benefits.

Also, earth berming requires only a 10’ to 15’ perimeter extension of the house-plan’s foot print. Earth roofs are fire proof, hail proof, tornado proof, lightning proof and maintenance free save for insuring a healthy ground foliage on it.

That would require on average housing lots which are 20 to 30’ wider and 20 to 30’ longer if housing is packed close. The cost for the additional lot size would be repaid in spades by the energy and maintenance savings. Earth bermed structures are far quieter to exterior noise and using either concrete block or concrete pour structures, these structures would last a centuries. Termites could never destroy them, carpenter ants nor rot could ever harm their structual integrity.

The benefits are so many, and that is precisely why insurance companies, developers, building materials suppliers all would lobby against such buildings on a commercial basis, not to mention the timber industry, the fiber glass industry, and the roofing industries. Two industries that would benefit would be concrete suppliers and contractors and waterproofing companies like Grace which makes Bituthene, a kind of rubber membrane used to encase earth bermed structures and flat roofs, making them water proof.

Earth berming of course eliminates the need to orient a structure to the sun. And slopes of course, are ideal for earth bermed structures.

Hay bale construction is another one. Though it doesn’t have all the advantages of earth bermed homes, it is fire proof, largely earth quake proof, extremely high energy conservation, and again can last for a 150 to 200 years easily. How environmentally non-toxic can you get than hay bale structures? Even their demolition results in recyclable products.

Different locales have different options depending upon local resources. In the north west, stacked cordwood structures make sense on heavily wooded lots, preferably earth bermed for energy savings. They are, contrary to intuition, virtually fireproof. Put a blow torch to the end of a piece of cordwood 6-8” in diameter. It will char, but the cordwood log won’t burn: insufficient fuel to oxygen ratio. In the midwest, either haybale or earth berm makes sense since both hay and soil are relatively abundant and cheap. In the south, concrete block earth berm structures make sense where and wood and hay are not plentiful.

Jimmie

“The mirror idea” ? My original post DID point out that the “mirror idea” is impractical as it cannot generate any electricity during the night hours. Your post made me laugh - you obviously didn’t grasp that I think using “Solar Power” is a liberal fantasy, and will remain so for thirty to fifty years.

Read the rest of my post. Modern oil drilling technology is all we need to get the deep steam up to the surface where it can be put to use in thermal electric power stations.

The GeoDynamics website shows a cool picture of the steam blasting out of the ground at their new Habanero well in South Australia.

Just a thought:

As far as I know all of the nuclear power station accidents were caused by human error, especially Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Nuclear reactors are potentially dangerous, ergo, operators must pay attention.

The US Navy probably has at least 100 nuclear reactors operating today and has been operating some since at least 1955. Reactor accidents have been rare, thanks to Adm. Rickover’s training system, arguably there have not been any serious ones (depends on how the Thresher was lost - another topic). Perhaps if the civilian staff of the nuclear power stations had the same standards and discipline as the Navy, accidents would be fewer. Certainly, the civilians are paid more than their Navy counterparts.

Charles Kovacs

Jack:

“More people have died in Teddy Kennedy?s car than in all the nuclear accidents in U.S. history. We could have saved more lives by taking away Teddy?s car keys.”

Priceless.

I am convinced that the next MicroSoft will be one of four companies:

1) He who finds an efficient, safe way to mass produce Hydrogen.

2) He who finds an efficient, safe way to transfer the Hydrogen to a motorvehicle or storage tank in a home.

3) He who finds an efficient, safe way to store Hydrogen for future use.

4) He who creates an efficient, safe, and marketable engine running on Hydrogen alone.

I realize some of these already exist in one form or another, but not on a mass marketable scale.

We have 2 nuke plants in Wisconsin. The only noteable trouble we have had is with the water emmissions. The discharge is so warm that it causes troubles in Lake Michigan at the discharge points and beyond. This problem does need addressing, but does not negate the value of nuke energy.

Clearly, we need to regulate and track the spent fuel, if for no other reason than its potential use in dirty bombs. No need to enrich it further if it is just exploded for radioactive contamination purposes.

The last important point—transporting the waste to whatever facility will be used for permanent storage. I believe the vast majority is transported by rail and truck in extremely well engineered containers. We need to continue to develop better, safer, more secure transportation and container systems.

You’re right Charles. Nuclear plants are operating safely every day and there is no reason that cant happen on a larger scale.

As far as the waste disposal problem, just bury the stuff. The burial casks are unbelivably thick and there is no reason they will ever fail. Seems that there would be a windfall of cash for the governor that opens the door to this.

>Jeff Seltzer, critiquing political parties is fine. Insulting other participants on this site is not permitted, since it does not foster our objectives to inform through debate and perspective.

Very well: Republicans who advocate the expansion of the use of unsafe technologies (like nuclear energy) should all be put in prison for life without parole. (Apparently, this statement satisfies your requirement to “foster objectives and inform through debate and perspective.”)

David,

In some areas the building codes wont allow you to build an earth bermed home. You must have a direct exit to the outside in every room. Unless you want a one room house open on one side it doesn’t work very well.

As far as solar heating goes;

If I were to try to develope a viable system for that I would work on something that used a giant magnafying glass that tracked the sun, to direct the heat and transfer that through pumping systems where it could be stored underground untill needed. Think of a thermas jug, it will keep coffee hot all day. Now think how long 2000 gal of 200deg water in a tank underground would stay hot if never opened, and it had 3’ of foam insulation surounding it? Reheated on “sun” days, and a viable heat sourse unless it cooled below 70deg for lack of sunshine( that likely would take weeks). Whatever.

Jeff,

I can’t speak for the watchblog manager, I’m not even one of the fine editors on this site.

But I can say, from my years of reading/posting on this site; Even if it isn’t posted at the top of the page, argueing the rules, dancing on the borders, and pissing of the manager of the site will win you no points here.

Just a tip.

“Short of burning your hand on the cell, what is unclean about solar power?”

Jeff,
There is energy used and waste from these products in the manufacturing process and then there is also the problem of when these items are no longer operational, I don’t think they are 100% recyclable or biodegradable.

“pissing Off” (sic), from previous post.

Beagle, earth bermed homes are not hobbit holes. They cut wedges in the berm for windows and doors giving code compliant egress in each room, as well as the appearance of a standard home in terms of glazing which passes the same amount of light or more, as a conventional structure. I say more, because some upscale homes use reflective materials in the wedge retainer walls to pass even more natural light than a convention home window would.

David,

I understand that, but where I live you have to have the next best thing to a doorway to the outside to conform to their rules.
It entirely defeats the purpose of an earthbermed home, because when you’re through its nolonger bermed.
Its not building mfgrs, or material supplyers that require this, its the damn fire marshall!

Plus, every new home must conform visually with the other homes in the area, even if they cant be seen from the freaking roadway.
I’m all for tarpaper shack looking, energy efficent home on the outside, and put your money into the inside where YOU live!
I could give a poop less what someone else cares about how it looks as they drove past.
They just wont allow it here.

Beagle, the next best thing to a doorway is a window with a maximum code height from the floor to permit egress. I am familiar with building codes, and Homeowner’s Associations, I was president of one.

And you are half right about berming being compromised by cleavages in the berm for windows and doors. But, testing shows that the energy savings for a structure only 65% of which is bermed are enormous. Windows are the weakest link in any energy efficient home regardless of construction. With an R factor of from .75 to 5, they are energy wasters. But that is true of conventional homes as well.

There simply aren’t building or fire codes that exist today that can’t be accomodated by earth bermed homes. The value of earth berming is of course two fold. First the temp fluctuations of the soil berms are enormously reduced from that of air temp fluctuations, soil is slow to give up or absorb heat. In addition, the berm cleavages for windows and doors protect windows and doors from wind born heat exhange. Those northerly cold blasts are slammed against the doors and windows in earth bermed structures. They are converted into eddies at the entrance of the cleavage and don’t pentrate the cleavage to the door or window.

Homeowner’s convenants are subject to change by the homeowners. Homeowners themselves control the covenants after a builder’s interests in the development have expired and their representative removed from the Board of Directors.

Therefore, if there is a demand for immense savings of earth bermed homes, the homeowners of new earth bermed subdivisions would create their own restrictions which accomodate earth bermed structures. The hurdle of course, is the builders, who stand to lose profit on earth bermed construction and whose HO Assn board member would try to shape covenants to encumber earth bermed construction. This is not insurmountable however, since Board of Directors are typically made up of 3 or more members, only one of which belongs to the Builder.

You know, if there was a way to provide a massive quantity of cheap, clean reusable energy, I would be all for shutting down coal burning plants. Nuclear fission plants as well.

But at this point in time, not solar energy, not hydro-electric energy, not energy produced by wind power can supply our needs. Not even if we carpet wall-to-wall the Mojave Desert with solar panels. Not even if we ring the top of the Rocky Mountains with windmills. Not even if we dam up every river, stream and creek.

Face it…we’re energy hogs. And we always will be as long as we want to remain the manufacturing giant that we are. And we will get the cheapest energy we can, which is fossil fuels (right now).

The only thing we can really hope for for the future is nuclear fusion…and even that’s not totally safe.

Any other ideas?

Jim T, yes, I have another idea. Divorce ourselves from the failing belief that “more is better”.

Conservation holds out the greatest promise, because the savings are immediate, and they buy us time to develop alternatives. But, this government is deep in corporate pockets, and their philosophy will always be, “more is better”.

David,

If only that were possible. We live in a capitalist society that rewards us for our toys. Remember, whoever dies with the most toys…wins!

And what does it take to make those toys? Energy. ANY kind of energy. At ANY cost.

Will people spot wanting the newest automobile? Will people spot wanting the newest DVD?
Will people spot wanting the newest home?
Will people spot wanting the newest (insert item here)?

The answer is a resounding “NO”.

Sad to say that as long as people are motovated to do better for themselves and their family…as long as people have ambition that can be translated into material things…as long as we can do more with newer technology, no one will dump the belief that “more is better”.

And all of it costs energy.

Oooops! Insert “stop” where you see “spot” in my post.

English…DUH, Jim!

Sorry if someone already posted this link, but,

with security so good at the nuke plants we have now, we better go ahead and build some more…

(Looks like you picked the wrong day to plug nuclear power…)

Charles,

“As far as I know all of the nuclear power station accidents were caused by human error, especially Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Nuclear reactors are potentially dangerous, ergo, operators must pay attention.”

Actually, if the operators didn’t “pay attention” the nuclear reactor would simply shut itselfe down. It takes operator intervention to maintain the process. The errors for maintaining operatoins, in Chernobyl’s case were bypassing SCRAM circuits (safety circuits).

As rigorous as the operator training is and has been in the wake of TMI we really don’t have a problem. Sure, humans are human and make mistakes, but these plants are built to shutdown if the core is overheated. In regards to the Navy and their nuclear program, the commercial world has learned much from the navy and, in fact hires as their operators ex-navy nukes. There have been more safe operating cycles since TMI than you could even imagine. Nuclear power must be part of our future.

Breeder reactors will help with the waste issue, but not solve the problem. The waste issue is an industry of its own. There have been some research into using some of the waste to treat medical conditions as well as other things. Safe disposal of the waste is the only threat to nuclear energy’s future. However, comparing the amount of waste nuclear plants generate to the other energy producers and you’ll see they are MUCH bigger polluters.

Jeff…

Good point.

d.a.n,

Once again your use of the various ways to identify you bullet points is without equal. The bold characters are also magnificent. I could look at a post of yours that had no name attached and know immediately it was yours.

I happen to be a huge fan of nuclear energy. I am surprised BTW that nobody has bashed Bush for his pronounciation of nuclear yet.

All of the vegetables, fruits and herbs and spices that you advocate in the production of alternate fuels will leave a tremendous hole in the health food craze. GNC stores will be closing which will result in a loss of jobs.

I am wondering if anyone has looked at marijuana as a potential sourge of energy. It has more medicinal qualities than any other product on the planet or,so it is said by it’s advocates for legalization.

David,

It don’t mean much what a homeowners ass. thinks if the rules are governed by the state, county, township. They are elected and it goes back to politics.

If people making the rules base most of that on “max taxes” it wont mean much on whatever someone wants to build.

If you buy your land, build your energy friendly home, they don’t care, they can only tax you based on the value it will bring if sold on the open market, and if they deem that only you think its a cool idea, it gets banned.

They wanted to ban trailers, when courts said they couldn’t do that they passed a rule/law that every home had to have no less than a 3/12 pitch for the roof.
When people started puting in trailers and building a roof over them to meet that rule, they passed a rule/law based on sq. footage that would negate anything not built onsite because of the ability to transport it to the site.

I never wanted to live in a tin shack, but if someone does, more power to them.

Nothing wrong with trailers, my house (if allowed) would look like a tarpaper shack on the outside.

It all goes back to taxes, no matter what I/you want, it is outlawed if they cant charge “max tax” based on the basic selling market in the area.

Looks like you picked the wrong day to plug nuclear power

Yikes!

Conservation holds out the greatest promise, because the savings are immediate, and they buy us time to develop alternatives.

Absolutely

Why is it that no one has mentioned satellite solar collectors as a possible source of energy? The power is collected in space, then microwaved to earth. True, there are problems. The earth wobbles a bit, which makes aiming the beam problematic. And any passing flight of birds or airplanes would certainly get zapped. But I have read that a 100 mile diameter (no small feat to build) satellite, appropriately located in space, would by itself, satisfy the entire US electrical needs. Seems to me to be an idea worth exploring.

So far I have heard a lot of ideas about things that might be. That is good. I hear a lot of fears about what could happen. We need to be careful. We are told that conservation will solve our problem. It will help. But we are still left with the fact that an energy mix without nuclear power will not currently serve our needs. And we are left with the fact that nuclear power is the most earth friendly way we have to generate large enough quantities of power to serve our modern society.

David

I don’t know how much you pay for heating and air conditioning. My bills are too high, but even if I used zero energy for heating and air conditioning, I would still be using a lot of power - the computer I am using, for example, lights, Washing machines. I ride my bike to work some days, but I also take the metro. The metro runs on electricity. I bet it uses a lot more than my house.

Jeff

A bad day in what way? We can find examples of accidents in coal mines almost daily. The Middle East is destablized and still important because of oil. Visit the Grand Collee or Hoover Dam and tell me what might happen if someone managed to wreck them. There is no safe power.

We can’t conserve ourselves out of the problem. Someday we might have renewable, but not today. Nuclear is the best option today and probably for many tomorrows.

Jim T.

“Remember, whoever dies with the most toys…wins!”

Sorry to break this to you, but the one that dies with the most toys is still dead.

Conservation is the only way to lower our energey bills. Even if we started today, it still would be, what, 20, 30, years until a nuke plant would come online.
We’re talking about a HUGE investment here. The last blackout in NYC pointed out the blatant problems with our obsolete infrastructure.
Oil, please, we can barely refine the crude that is coming in now.
Coal, I have a habit I would like to continue, I breathe. I have been to China in the winter when everything is coal fired, you don’t want to go there.
We have built all these mass transit systems that everybody says don’t work. They don’t work because nobody uses them.

Coservation is your friend.

And it’s high time that we start finding out who our real friends are.

Rocky

Conservation is a good thing. We should do it. Higher prices for gas help. But we can’t conserve our way out of energy problems

The U.S. economy grows about 3% a year. Just to use the same energy as last year, we would have to conserve that amount each year in addition to whatever we managed to conserve the year before.

We also have new, energy using products. We all are sitting in front of computers. None of us had computers thirty years ago. Now we all do. When I was a kid, I had to sing or whistle when I walked. I didn’t have I-pods or CDs. How big is your TV? Do you have more than one? How many did your parents own? Teenagers now own cars. People expect to travel.

Conservation is part of the energy mix, but it is not the solution.

Look, Western Europe has been using nuclear power for decades, and I think their example is what we should be following.

Chernobyl occured during a time when the Soviet infrastructure was in a shambles, and 3MI was a big fat nothing. Compare 3MI to any oil spill, and you see that the environmental damage was far worse by the EXXON Valdez.

The major Caveat for nuclear power is that we MUST NOT do it on the cheap. We should give tax breaks to the energy companies to build them, but hold them financially responsible for any leaks. And just for fun, all plants should be built in red states, especially TX

Loren,

“And just for fun, all plants should be built in red states, especially TX”

I’m sure David will appreciate that.

Jack,

On my remark about mass transit. Here in Phoenix we always seem to wait until the last minute before doing anything, therefore we end up ripping out neighborhoods to take care of things that we really need.
We are finally building Light Rail 20 years too late.

I am serious about this country’s infrastructure. Mass quantities of money need to be invested.
Where is that money coming from?
Certianly not from the Feds.
Should the American people have to pay because our energy companies have been taking profits for the last thirty years?

I have read that a 100 mile diameter (no small feat to build) satellite, appropriately located in space, would by itself, satisfy the entire US electrical needs. Seems to me to be an idea worth exploring.

100 Freaking Miles??? Do you have any idea how big that is? It would be easier to launch the state of New Hampshire (9351 sq. miles) into space than to do so with a satellite! Never mind building it in the first place. I’m getting my evening entertainment reading some of these posts. Giant magnifying glasses, ha. Too bad this forum doesn’t have more engineers.

I don’t understand why Dems here, and even David, seem so paranoid about nuclear waste disposal. Have you even read up on Yucca Mountain before pronouncing doomsday assessments on the project? Do you have REALISTIC alternatives for alternative energy to offer to the discussion?

Nuclear fission plants are extremely expensive to build

Whoa there, sounds like we have an expert on cost analysis. Allow me to advocate my own source, compliments of Google: “The Economics of Nuclear Power”, from the Uranium Information Center in Melbourne, Australia.

The cost of building a nuclear reactor over a conventional one (coal or oil) is about double (OECD study, 1990s). Operating cost is comparible. Fuel cost is unbelievably cheaper, ranging from 1:3 to 1:6. Payoff on investment: about 30 years from construction. Environmental benefits? Those alone ought to be enough to convince any conscientious environmentalist to change over. See the graphs for yourself.

Bio fuels, as nice as they sound, simply won’t generate the amount of electricity we need. Wind can help a little (my dad was a windmill engineer); one design for the new World Trade Center called for windmills on the roof to supply 10% of the energy for the building. But 10% isn’t very much. Solor panels? Getting warmer here (the trend hasn’t caught on in the U.S.), but this won’t be adequate for vehicles. Energy gain from natural sources tends to be quite inefficient. The best thing we’ve come up with, perhaps, is golf courses built on top of landfills with methane harvesting (a product of decomposing plastics).

If someone would like to do a case study recommending government subsidies to push solar panel use, I’m all ears. Short of that, it seems nuclear power (to produce the hydro cells) is the way to go. If we take an honest look at the facts, the safety concerns are not very convincing.

The U.S. economy grows about 3% a year. Just to use the same energy as last year, we would have to conserve that amount each year in addition to whatever we managed to conserve the year before.

Faulty logic here. GDP growth is not directly driven by energy usage. In fact, GDP can grow even as energy usage declines. This isn’t as much a matter of old-fashioned conservation as it is more efficient technologies. Better machines (including light bulbs) can operate using less energy. Also, many service jobs don’t require intensive use of energy but they steadily grow the U.S. economy.

Tom L,

Thanks for the points you raised and I agree with you that nuclear power is a must for the future. On waste disposal, I am not sure if the problem has not been overplayed by the environmentalist lobby, if you shield and bury the waste deep enough it’s unlikely to bother anyone.

On conservation, the savings in fuel may be immediate but it will be at a cost. Fuel efficient engines are more expensive than their predecessors, etc. We need serious cost-benefit analysis for conservation measures as we do have plenty of time and much of the technology for major savings is already available, although not used. (e.g. computer controlled carburetors could increase fuel efficiency by 50% but they would make engines more expensive). Conservation is a practical problem, but for many greens it seems to be an ideological and emotional issue.

Charles Kovacs

Jack said: “I don�t know how much you pay for heating and air conditioning. My bills are too high, but even if I used zero energy for heating and air conditioning,”

I built my house with energy in mind. The walls are all constructed of 2x8’s giving me R 23.5 walls. My ceilings upstairs are 2x12’s giving me R 44. I built my house with generous roof overhangs which shade all walls except during part of the morning and part of the late afternoon, and I oriented the house so that the smallest wall gets the setting sun’s rays.

I have reflective material in the attic interior, and vapor barrier under all of the exterior sheathing, as well as shiny galvanized metal roofing to reflect some of the sun’s rays.

I heat the entire house with one wood burning stove in the living room with a glass front and in duct fans to distribute its heat. I cool the entire house with 2 window Air Conditioners. My electric bill in this all electric 2 story house this last month was $145, which includes all normal appliances and my power tools and workshop activiites and outdoor lighting since we are in the hill country. Our electric rates are significantly higher than in nearby San Antonio which is why I invested in the additional structural components. We will likely see a $190 bill in August which will decline every month after that to the low point of about $100 in January. This means about half my energy useage is consumed by cooling my central Texas house.

I don’t know how my bills compare to yours. But, we have neighbors in the area whose bills never go below $200 a month and one has seen theirs spike to over $325 with the same or less square footage. My house is 1475 s.f. That is very, very sad since my neighbor’s costs and waste, recur month after month, year after year.

I calculated at one point some time ago, that I would recoup the extra structural costs through energy savings in about 4 and a half years. Given the current increased energy costs however, that figure is probably more realistically at about 6 years now.

We have a 1000 s.f cordwood earth bermed extension to this house planned for construction next year if my body holds up to the heavy manual labor that will require.

If America gets busy investing in this kind of conservation today, she can begin reaping some of the benefits before ANWR puts out its first drop of oil, and can look forward to increasing those energy reductions for decades and decades to come.

David Remer,

When do you sleep? It seems like I see your comments here at all hours.

Gandhi,

You may wish to do some reading on the subject before you laugh at an idea. Its already being done on a comercial scale to produce elec. power.

http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/re-kiosk/solar/solar-thermal/applications/power-generation.shtml

I guess the idea is valid.

A little study on the subject only gives me more ideas on the best usage of the high temp. steam that can be generated by that system for homeowner usage.
Rather than useing it to heat and store hot water for heating, use it to power a small elec. generator for home elec use, and go to all elec like David has. It totally eliminates the need to store the energy, the power company will store that for you in the form of feedback credits.

Just as they do for home windpower generated elec, you get credits for what you supply for their use, and a very small amount of cash for what you dont use yearly.( it may vary for different states/power companys).
I see no reason why a small home useage generator useing solar power couldn’t be built and marketed in a cost effective mannor.

I would still start building nuke plants and work on a viable disposal process for the waste that all sides could agree on.

One question Mr. Gandhi, How would you know there are no engineers useing/reading this site?

Mr. Ghandi,

Before you so quickly dismiss the idea of satellite generated power….

A diameter of 100 miles does not mean it has to be all one satellite. You can break it up into smaller satellites. I assume they can be made of flexible materials, rolled up, shot into space and then unfolded. Probably easier to do than that stupid space station.

Notice also that I said ALL of the power the US requires. That means no more fission, coal, or oil generators to worry about. Think of it!

Plus, it would give NASA something useful to do.

Are there any rocket scientists out there reading this stuff who could comment on the feasibilty of this?

How big does this satellite have to be?

Beagle: I agree with you on the potential of solar power for home use. I just said it’s impractical for transportation needs, and I don’t see solar energy getting converted into a form that’s useful for cars. If you have some serious sources for the feasability of this (the link you supplied is not a very helpful one), please post them.

Peter: I don’t know the size that is required for such an energy solution, but I can do the math based on your projected area to make the proposition look ridiculous:

Size of a conventional satelite? I don’t have any idea, but let’s go with the Space Shuttle for a model (122’ by 57’). To be very generous, let’s suggest that 30 years from now, NASA could launch a 1000x1000 ft satelite for the same cost that it takes to launch a space shuttle.

1000ft2 satelites in one sqaure mile: 28
1000ft2 satelites in 100 square miles: 278,784

Cost of launching a space shuttle: $600 million. Let’s suppose that this cost can be cut to $20 million in today’s dolars, 30 years from now.

$20 million times 278,784 = $55.7 trillion. That’s the entire US GDP for five years, with extremely generous cost estimates, which doesn’t even factor in the cost of actually constructing the satellites on earth, or reassembing them in space. Could it be done? In a sci-fi movie, perhaps. But logistically, it sounds like Reagan’s “Star Wars” times a million. Tapping heat from the earth’s core sounds like a better idea.

Lawnboy, I was created by nanobots, I need no sleep like mortal humans. :-)

Charles Kovacs said: “On waste disposal, I am not sure if the problem has not been overplayed by the environmentalist lobby, if you shield and bury the waste deep enough it’s unlikely to bother anyone.”

Unless there is an earthquake, volcanic activity, or the need in the future to go deeper in search of water, especially in the west. Any of these could be catastrophic for future populations and not just in the area, but, downstream of the area by hundreds of miles if springs are created from the underground water table.

Rocky said,

“And just for fun, all plants should be built in red states, especially TX”
I’m sure David will appreciate that.

We have grass fires down here fairly regularly due to hot dry summers. I might feel compelled to head downwind of one of those… ahh… to help dig a fire block trench, of course! :-)

Re David Remer’s comment:

I did say that the rubbish should be shielded and did not suggest that it be buried in a basement in San Francisco. We have a pretty good idea these days where earthquakes and volcanoes are likely to occur, so the disposal site could be someplace stabler than the San Andreas faultline and other, similar locations.

Charles Kovacs

Mr. Ghandi,

In another time, I’m sure you would have said that cell phones were impossible, and the automobile would never work.

In point of fact, satellite solar power (SPS) is serious technology. Their feasibility is being intensly studied and it seems that Japan is planning to launch such a satellite in 2040.

In an earlier posting I said a 100 square mile satellite would replace every drop of power the US needs. I’m not sure if that figure is right, but you seem to focus on 100 miles or nothing. Systems can be launched gradually and put on line as needed.

Your math eluded me, but you must remember that mylar reflectors can be rolled up and inflated in space. That way, you get a very big collection area for the buck. It turns out that there some other nifty ways to construct satellites that are being explored.

I was wrong about the zapping of planes and birds. Studies have been done to suggest that critters can fly right though the beams without harm.

I never said that SPS systems are practical today. But solar technology is rapidly improving and the economics have seemingly turned positive. I think it makes more sense to invest in SPS than in some of the other off the wall ideas that have been presented here. In fact, I predict that in 100 years, SPS will provide a significant percent of US power. (Make sure you let me know if I’m wrong!)

Here are some URLs for more information:

http://spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_technologies.shtml

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html

Or simply google “Satellite Solar Power” and see what you come up with.

Peter

Peter, you clearly haven’t been reading through my posts and sources with the detail I’ve been reading through yours. I based my math projections on your own estimates of 100 sq. miles. I’m not even debating whether such energy collection is feasable on some smaller level. But I think we have better options available.

According to your two sources, the sun provides 1365 watts per square meter of energy at the earth’s orbit, while a square meter on the earth receives around 1000 watts. There are certain advantages to collecting in space: you’re not dependent on weather conditions to collect sunlight, so perhaps you might collect about double what a solar panel on the earth (with 4-6 hours of sunlight on average) would collect. There are also major disadvantages: it’s very difficult and expensive to assemble and fix things in space, there is energy lost in the collection/transmission/recollection process of beaming the energy to earth, and such large satelites are fantastic targets for other countries in a war.

I’d still like to see what space-collected solar energy offers that earth-based solar collection does not. Seems a much more expensive way of doing it, and still doesn’t answer how we should be powering transportation.

Or we could use nuclear power. Wasn’t that the point of this topic anyway? Sounds pretty safe and efficient to me.

I was surprised no one mentioned anything about some of the key ideas proposed from the Positive Energy issue of Wired. For long term energy independance we need to continue research into the 100% renewable sources, such as solar, geothermal and others, as many have mentioned. This is something America is lagging behind in, most advances in solar and wind efficiency are coming from Eurioe and Asia, though they still have a long ways off from providing for our energy hungry world.

However, in regards to short term solutions, we can use the technolgy we have right now, in fact technology that has been around, to solve our problem. No new fantastical technology is necessary, nor do we need large expensive nuclear plants. The way to solve our short term energy demands simply requires a rethinking of our process of energy distribution. One of the fundamental properties of energy is that it is always expanding and converting into more difficult to tap into sources. Energy is never lost it only changes into unusable forms. When you heat a pot of water much of the energy is lost heating the air around the pot, but you can’t vacuum that heat out of the air and use it again, but you know putting a lid on it will prevent some of that loss and the water will heat faster.

One of the biggest problems with our current energy system is inefficiency and the containtment of the energy we are already producing. In most areas the distance between the power-plant and the home is so great, and the power lines so outdated, that as much 60% of the power is lost before arrival (this is not counting the energy lost to inefficient devices and uses). That is a waste so large we could almost power two America’s with the output we already have (I say almost because a % will always be lost, unless we overturn the laws of physics.) That is an unacceptable waste in a time when energy is of such concern. But everyone is focused on new technology, not yet ready for mass implantation, and bringing back nuclear plant production, which would be very expensive to build, and the long term storage of waste is still a hot issue of debate, especially to those living near the proposed dumping regions.

To solve the wasted energy three significant, but very accomplishable things need to happen.

One is that old power lines need to be updated with cables that conduct electricity more efficiently, and thus reduce the amount of energy lost during travel. Right off the bat with no new plant production this could significantly increase our power output.

Two is that we need to rethink our power grid system and begin to shape it using the logic we have learned from the internet. The power grid of today is powered by a few number of large power plants providing to large populaces, much like the central hubs of the early internet. The problem with this system is inefficiency, because power has to travel long distances and with a limited number of routes. Like the data losses before packets and relay servers were introduced on the internet, lots of energy is being lost into oblivion. So instead of building monolithic power plants on the outskirts of cities, we should focus our attention on small efficient power generators and plants spread throughout the energy grid, suppling power locally, which reduces distance, which combined with modern cabling, means very low energy waste. These mini-plants could be made to work in sync with the other mini-plants on the grid, producing power when it is needed and distributing it where it needs to go, further cutting down waste. Such an energy-web system could not only deliver more power, because of the reduction of needless waste, but it would also safe guard our selves from the possibility of terrorist attacks upon centralized sources of power. If one of these mini-plants were to be attacked it would only destroy a very small area and the mini-plants from surrounding areas could temporarily provide excess power to the area effected by the attack. Such an attack would not be very effective and thus not be worth the effort. However an attack on a giant oil refining and power suppling area, such as the one closest to me in Long Beach, could be catastrophic. Another advantage to such a system would be easy integration of future power technologies into this multi-faceted web.

The third thing that needs to happen is replacing old devices with more efficient ones and conservation in general, reducing our waste on the consumer end as well as the production side. For example an incandescent light-bulb uses 5% of it’s power to produce light, the other 95% is wasted as heat energy. Florescent lights use 20% (this number I believe is higher now, my source for the light bulbs is a slightly outdated ecology text book) of their power for light, and 80% is wasted, which is 4 times more efficient then incandescent. They also last longer before burning out, which means less energy needed producing more light bulbs. Here is an example of what a little efficiency can do. As an experiment to raise awareness of energy efficiency in Bangkok, Thailand, TV stations complied with the government to display the city wide power usage as a dial meter at 9 pm, one of the peak power consuming times. Viewers were asked to turn off any lights or electronic devices not in use in their home. The dial dropped by 735 megawatts, the equivalent output of two medium sized coal-burning power plants.

Such a web based system, with low waste, using already available technology, we could power our country with energy to spare, at least until renewable and new technology are ready to come save the day, and with less expense then high maintenance centralized nuclear power. For more information about this idea check out the Positive Energy article from Wired 9.07.