How does alternative energy offset dependence on foreign oil?

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: So

Just an FYI, if we drop coal for "alternative" energy, expect your power bill to double, or more. The only "renewable" power source that is actually more than a big PR device right now is geothermal.

We need nukes in the worst way, but that's never gonna happen, thanks to anti-nuke paranoia.

Eliminate subsidies and cheap government leases to coal companies, and see what happens.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Energy is fungible. If you increase wind power, that means natural gas is available for running fleet vehicles, buses, etc.... which replaces oil used for those purposes.

We'll also need more power capacity for electric cars and plug in hybrids. So we can either build more natural gas power plants, or more solar power plants. Which would you rather have?

Nuclear power isn't some panacea like a lot of you apparently think. Remember, Mr. Nuclear himself, John McCain, didn't want nuclear waste shipped across Arizona.

You know.. one risk of nuclear power is some future conservative administration relaxing regulations "because the government is evil and private companies can police themselves better", resulting in contamination, meltdown, or improper disposal of waste. Unless we as a nation shift significantly to the left, the less nuclear power there is, the safer our children will be.

I don't think you understand how lopsided the regulation of nuclear materials actually is.

Your average, 1000MW coal-fired plant will burn through about 4 million tons of coal a year. Uranium (one of the many heavy metals which naturally occur in coal) occurs in coal at a concentration of 1 part-per-million, so there will be 4 _tons_ of uranium in an annual amount of fly-ash from this coal plant!

All of you, who have stated blatant generalizations about nuclear power's "appalling" safety record here need to start asking questions instead of simply echoing propaganda. Nukes will be the only way to fix both a) the apparent problem of global warming and b)dependence on foreign oil.

 

[JMapleton]

Originally posted by: So
Name me one incident of a nuclear plant being breached and the fuel being stolen for use in a weapon, much less turned into weapons grade material. Stop listening to people who profit from your fear -- there is no credible danger of a nuclear plant leading to a terrorist nuclear bomb.

Name me one incident before Sept 11th that terrorists have hijacked a planed and crashed it into a prominent skyscraper.

You have to be kidding to a ridiculous extent to say just because something has not yet happened it won't ever happen.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: JMapleton

Originally posted by: So
Name me one incident of a nuclear plant being breached and the fuel being stolen for use in a weapon, much less turned into weapons grade material. Stop listening to people who profit from your fear -- there is no credible danger of a nuclear plant leading to a terrorist nuclear bomb.

Name me one incident before Sept 11th that terrorists have hijacked a planed and crashed it into a prominent skyscraper.

You have to be kidding to a ridiculous extent to say just because something has not yet happened it won't ever happen.

You do realize that terrible, terrible things could happen from just about any power/chemical installation, not just nuclear, right? Terrorists could also theoretically unleash pesticide from a chemical plant, just like in 24. Do you think it's impossible to have extra-tight security in place around nuclear plants? And do you realize how many things have to go wrong for it to malfunction?

We're the most powerful nation in the world. We need to step things up, become self-sufficient and secured, and not let "what could happen" dictate our policy.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: futuristicmonkey
I don't think you understand how lopsided the regulation of nuclear materials actually is.

Your average, 1000MW coal-fired plant will burn through about 4 million tons of coal a year. Uranium (one of the many heavy metals which naturally occur in coal) occurs in coal at a concentration of 1 part-per-million, so there will be 4 _tons_ of uranium in an annual amount of fly-ash from this coal plant!

All of you, who have stated blatant generalizations about nuclear power's "appalling" safety record here need to start asking questions instead of simply echoing propaganda. Nukes will be the only way to fix both a) the apparent problem of global warming and b)dependence on foreign oil.

Also fun: People have died in the US due to nuclear power plants. These were of course due to construction accidents of the sort which could occur at any construction site.

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
You do realize that terrible, terrible things could happen from just about any power/chemical installation, not just nuclear, right? Terrorists could also theoretically unleash pesticide from a chemical plant, just like in 24. Do you think it's impossible to have extra-tight security in place around nuclear plants? And do you realize how many things have to go wrong for it to malfunction?

We're the most powerful nation in the world. We need to step things up, become self-sufficient and secured, and not let "what could happen" dictate our policy.

Exactly. Humans are resourceful and creative. We'll always find innovative and interesting ways of killing each other over the stupidest, pettiest bullshit. My money's on nanotechnology.

 

[Fenixgoon]

most petroleum is used for transportation, IIRC. i know about 5% is for synthetic materials.

nuclear is our best alternative due to power density, cleanliness, production consistency, and availability. i would LOVE for new nuke plants to be constructed.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Fuck, we need to find a good, efficient way to isolate hydrogen.

Spaaaaace Funnel! We build a giant funnel in space to catch the hydrogen wind coming off the sun. The funnel concentrates the hydrogen and then at the earth end of the funnel, the earth's gravity pulls the hydrogen down to earth and compresses the hydrogen for ready use.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Fuck, we need to find a good, efficient way to isolate hydrogen.

Spaaaaace Funnel! We build a giant funnel in space to catch the hydrogen wind coming off the sun. The funnel concentrates the hydrogen and then at the earth end of the funnel, the earth's gravity pulls the hydrogen down to earth and compresses the hydrogen for ready use.

BRILLIANT!

 

[alien42]

convert fleets vehicles to natural gas/electric hybrids and our foreign oil demand will be reduced drastically.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
most petroleum is used for transportation, IIRC. i know about 5% is for synthetic materials.

nuclear is our best alternative due to power density, cleanliness, production consistency, and availability. i would LOVE for new nuke plants to be constructed.

Don't forget reprocessing plants for improved energy extraction efficiency from uranium ore.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Fuck, we need to find a good, efficient way to isolate hydrogen.

What's that got to do with this issue? Hopefully you realize that even with a better, more efficient way to isolate hydrogen, hydrogen absolutely is NOT an energy source*. This discussion is about energy sources, not ways to store and transport energy. Hydrogen is merely a means to transport the energy created by other sources.

*edit: unless you're talking about nuclear fusion, something that's far off in the future.

 

[Sust]

For those of you who are proponents of nuclear power, could any of you comment on how the radioactive ore/isotopes are harvested and how safe the byproducts are? Is it true that the radioactive ore can contain un-usable radioactive particles? Can said particles which are typically separated from useful ore be left at a dump site and potentially aerosolized into the local air if not properly sealed? Can the same particles also leach into local water supplies if not properly sealed? What do old mine sites look like in terms of habitation and is the 20 mile radius around the mine inhabitable?

While I was working in a rural part of VA, the local community was up in arms about some company trying to dig into local uranium deposits and the opponents painted a picture of devastation for the local area and any other parts of VA which were either downwind or downstream of this proposed Uranium mine.
Just curious if it's not the plants themselves we should worry the most about.

 

[frostedflakes]

Mining is pretty damaging, but I think we get most of our fissile material from Canada and Australia (both have huge uranium mining industries). And, of course, disposal is the million dollar question. A lot of people are for nuclear, as long as you don't try to dump the waste in their state. Somebody's going to have to take one for the team and start taking the waste. So much time and money spent at Yucca, yet very little progress has been made because of opposition to the project.

That's my only real concern about nuclear, I think it's kind of irresponsible to build more plants until we have a plan to deal with the waste. Nuclear plants themselves (especially the latest gen III designs) are extremely safe, though -- I'd have no qualms about living near one.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Mining is pretty damaging, but I think we get most of our fissile material from Canada and Australia (both have huge uranium mining industries). And, of course, disposal is the million dollar question. A lot of people are for nuclear, as long as you don't try to dump the waste in their state. Somebody's going to have to take one for the team and start taking the waste. So much time and money spent at Yucca, yet very little progress has been made because of opposition to the project.

That's my only real concern about nuclear, I think it's kind of irresponsible to build more plants until we have a plan to deal with the waste. Nuclear plants themselves (especially the latest gen III designs) are extremely safe, though -- I'd have no qualms about living near one.

..waste alarmism is an eco-KOOK hoax. reprocessing of spent rods greatly reduces waste material.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

WE need electrical vehicles .... duh

Oh, and solar tech needs to be totally redone. There are trace metals needed for production and guess what ..... they aren't going to last long!

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
WE need electrical vehicles .... duh

Oh, and solar tech needs to be totally redone. There are trace metals needed for production and guess what ..... they aren't going to last long!

we're going to run out of silicon?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: IGBT

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Mining is pretty damaging, but I think we get most of our fissile material from Canada and Australia (both have huge uranium mining industries). And, of course, disposal is the million dollar question. A lot of people are for nuclear, as long as you don't try to dump the waste in their state. Somebody's going to have to take one for the team and start taking the waste. So much time and money spent at Yucca, yet very little progress has been made because of opposition to the project.

That's my only real concern about nuclear, I think it's kind of irresponsible to build more plants until we have a plan to deal with the waste. Nuclear plants themselves (especially the latest gen III designs) are extremely safe, though -- I'd have no qualms about living near one.

..waste alarmism is an eco-KOOK hoax. reprocessing of spent rods greatly reduces waste material.

No, waste is a legitimate issue. France has a great reprocessing program, but after decades of nuclear power generation they have generated plenty of waste and have had problems safely disposing of it.

We definitely need to start reprocessing in the US, though. Would cut down a lot on waste.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Fuck, we need to find a good, efficient way to isolate hydrogen.

Then what? Hydrogen gas has the lowest BTU per volume compared to any other fuel, its difficult to store, its dangerously explosive under pressure, and easily floats off into space if its gets into our atmosphere.

We need alternative electric generating sources, with alternative liquid storage mediums.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
WE need electrical vehicles .... duh

Oh, and solar tech needs to be totally redone. There are trace metals needed for production and guess what ..... they aren't going to last long!

we're going to run out of silicon?

He said trace mineral. For a silicon substrate to perform any function, it needs to be doped.

 

[silverpig]

Hydrogen sucks unless you're talking about fusion. I wish it would be completely abandoned in favour of things that make sense such as improved battery tech, ultracapacitors etc.

Also, we should build nuke plants that reprocess their fuel. After the fuel is completely spent it contains byproducts which are highly radioactive, but decay down to background levels in about 700 years instead of 10000+.

Spend money now on wind and reprocessing nuke plants, then throw money at fusion, solar, and better electrical storage tech.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
WE need electrical vehicles .... duh

Oh, and solar tech needs to be totally redone. There are trace metals needed for production and guess what ..... they aren't going to last long!

we're going to run out of silicon?

He said trace mineral. For a silicon substrate to perform any function, it needs to be doped.

I'm not entirely sure what metals are used in solar cell production, but typical dopants for silicon are boron for p+ doping, and phosphorus for n- doping (arsenic is also an n- dopant).

I heard gallium is something that is used a lot, but am unsure what its use would be in silicon pv cells. I know there are gallium arsenide cells, but they're expensive, toxic, fragile, and aren't used much.

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Also, we should build nuke plants that reprocess their fuel. After the fuel is completely spent it contains byproducts which are highly radioactive, but decay down to background levels in about 700 years instead of 10000+.

You'll want to look here.

Look at the CANDU/LWR Synergism section.

What these anti-nuke people do not know (for if they did, they would surely tell you) is that certain types of reactors can be reconfigured as "burners" where the fission by-products are further broken down into less hazardous materials. I'm not going to re-type what is said in the link -- check it out for yourself.


Edit: As for the waste storage problem -- it's been suggested that the widescale opposition to waste-storage facilities is based on the general public's inability to think beyond their lifetime. I was browsing through a nuclear engineering journal at school a few months ago, I'll see if I can find a citation to post here, if anyone cares.

The basic idea is that people were polled to see how long they think the dry-storage casks would last(how long until containment failed). There were options of things like 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc. The majority chose 100 years, IIRC. Another survey was taken where people were asked how far forward do they think when planning their lives. Guess what, the majority responded with a similar period, ~100 years.

I also recall a 2002 NSF poll which found that 70% of Americans (and I'd like to generalize this to all of north america, as there is evidence of such activity north of the border) do not understand the rudiments of the scientific process.

It is not until the public begins to _ask_ how nuclear can help them that it will become viable on a large-scale. Mindless repetition of propaganda founded by events in the 60's and 70's will do no one any good.