NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people are complaining about energy. Oil they say is not environmentally friendly. The US cannot become oil independent because we would have to drill in Anwar and off the coast of California and Florida where people do not want us to drill. So, the US must get off oil but what are the alternatives?

1. Nuclear power. Hell no, radiation and waste disposal.
2. Bio fuel. Hell no, it takes more energy to grow the plants than it is worth.
3. Wind power. Hell no, I do not want those noisy windmills in my back yard and think of the migratory birds that will be killed by them.
4. Hydroelectric. Hell no, we do not need to build more dams, just think of the fish that cannot get up stream to spawn.
5. Coal. Are you shitting me? Look at the soot that is spewing from those coal plants.
6. Natural gas. Well, better than coal but look at the pollution it dumps into the air.


So, what the hell is the solution?

We could burn hobos.

Nuclear, wind and hydroelectric. What would you prefer? Noise, a few dead fish, and some landfills or no electricity? Besides, we should just fire our nuclear waste into the sun.

Those kinds of people are in the minority at best, and in many places are simply not to be found. There is easily greater than 70 support for wind, biofuels, solar, biomass, geothermal, tidal, and other forms of renewable energy. Nuclear is definitely a majority; IIRC, something like two thirds of Americans support expansion of nuclear power.

Coal is going to be built whether people want it or not, and natural gas is pretty much dead in the water because the cost of the fuel is continuing to rise and supplies are going to become more and more difficult to attain due to resistance to LNG. Renewable and alternative energy is unifying people across the political spectrum; it's one of the few issues people diametrically opposed politically agree on.

Personally, I support all of these sources as contributors to our post-fossil, post-carbon energy needs. The available resources, with present technology, in these fields are far more than anything fossil fuels have ever produced in their entire lifespan.

A mix of renewable sources and increased efficiency standards/conservation measures are the ticket. Oh, and here (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html)'s another interesting energy source.

Advanced nuclear energy in combination with more biofuels. Sounds yayish to me.

The problem really is that you just can't 'magic' other energy supplies into existence. The US has spent the past three decades running down its institutional knowledge base insofar as as this type of thing is concerned, so there really is no solution. We'll just keep on what we are doing because we don't know how to do anything else.

All this 'objection' BS is just a sideshow put on by politicians because they don't want to admit that any transitition - and really nuclear is like 90% of the solution - is possible.

i though natural gas was pretty clean and it was just issues of refining or extraction that made it not so popular.

i am largely ignorant of the energy debate however.

i though natural gas was pretty clean and it was just issues of refining or extraction that made it not so popular.

Even that's not too dirty; modern natural gas production is pretty clean, just like oil. The main reason is, quite simply, the supply of natural gas. The US, Canada, and Mexico can't produce enough natural gas to meet all of our demand, which means we have to import additional gas in the form of LNG (liquefied natural gas). Then, the LNG has to be transported via huge tanker ships that are unloaded and the liquid gasified and shipped through pipelines to where it is needed.

This wouldn't be a problem if LNG tankers or terminals didn't have the (extremely small) risk of exploding in the event of a terrorist attack or shipping accident. And, of course, that explosion wouldn't be too bad if the LNG didn't create a several hundred meter in diameter fireball that would effectively destroy everything in the blast radius.

Now, there are LNG terminals in operation, and many new ones are being successfully constructed so it's not really a major problem in terms of capacity. The problem is, of course, that many of these terminals aren't really near where they need to be (mainly on the Gulf Coast), and that means natural gas prices in places that aren't readily serviced by overland pipelines or LNG, like the West Coast or New England, tend to be more volatile and overall more expensive than in places like the Midwest or the South.

And, lastly, the place where natural gas is most needed is the West Coast, where the majority of power plants constructed in the past two decades have been natural gas fired due to the cheap cost (until 1999 or so). However, that's no longer the case and the high prices of gas is causing utilities to reconsider building natural gas power plants.

We could burn hobos.

That's a deplorable thing to say.

First off, a growing body of research indicates that hobos release less than 1.52 kilojoules per limb of recoverable energy when combusted *, resulting in an EROEI < 1.00.

Second, a lot of them smell like hair when burned.

Lastly, there is the moral issue: can we redirect vital research capital towards energy technology when headless clone ranching will save lives?

(* -B. Wang and V. Jina, Journal of Dubious Biochemistry, Vol 3, Issue 238, "Viable Thermodynamics of Flaming Homeless Humans and We Drank Beer")

Many people are complaining about energy. Oil they say is not environmentally friendly. The US cannot become oil independent because we would have to drill in Anwar and off the coast of California and Florida where people do not want us to drill. So, the US must get off oil but what are the alternatives?

1. Nuclear power. Hell no, radiation and waste disposal.
2. Bio fuel. Hell no, it takes more energy to grow the plants than it is worth.
3. Wind power. Hell no, I do not want those noisy windmills in my back yard and think of the migratory birds that will be killed by them.
4. Hydroelectric. Hell no, we do not need to build more dams, just think of the fish that cannot get up stream to spawn.
5. Coal. Are you shitting me? Look at the soot that is spewing from those coal plants.
6. Natural gas. Well, better than coal but look at the pollution it dumps into the air.


So, what the hell is the solution?

1. Solar power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#Disadvantages)
2. Tidal power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power)
3. Geothermal power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power)
4. Wave power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power)

Personally, I think the best option would be a combination of all methods listed.
I've never heard of wind power engines being noisy, and there are plenty of them in Germany at the moment. They usually get built outside towns and villages, not right next door to people. And seriously, if they kill birds we'd have to tear down all windmills for the same reason.
Hydroelectrics doesn't need to prevent fish from getting upriver. German hydroelectric plants have designed "fish paths", small waterways that will allow the fish to get where they want by bypassing the dams.

"Radiation and waste disposal"?

See, this is the problem with the debate. Nuclear power has all of these negative myths attached to it. In modern nuclear power plants, radiation is as much of a danger is as smog is from a modern coal plant - i.e. not much danger at all. And waste disposal, well, that's sorted too, these days they have it contained in several inches-thick carbon and buried at the bottom of the sea.

I believe nuclear energy is the future, but it is not perfect yet, it still does not produce enough energy output compared to the energy needed to start the process. But, if we continue to finance the nuclear industry, then they will be able to invest in research that will bring us the next generation of energy.

Wind farms

3. Wind power. Hell no, I do not want those noisy windmills in my back yard and think of the migratory birds that will be killed by them.

You sound like a Kennedy, geez. Anyhow, I've been near some of the most massive windpower generators, and they didn't seem noisy to me, but even if they were, you probably wouldn't live near it. Most of the ones I've seen are in Oklahoma and rural California, none too close to housing.

Anyway, I'm a solar fan. Doesn't solve the problem of fuel for cars and trucks, but it's efficient.

German hydroelectric plants have designed "fish paths", small waterways that will allow the fish to get where they want by bypassing the dams.

We have those too. Fish still die. However, I find some fish death acceptable, so long as it doesn't destroy entire species. One dam in the U.S. was nearly shut down because opening it would've killed a certain fish. The fish turned out not to be endangered, but was wiped out inthe vicinity of the dam in any case. Interesting, if frustrating story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snail_darter_controversy (Warning: this may bore you).

IV generation nuclear power. Wind is proberbly viable in the UK. (The windiest nation in Europe). Geothermal is posible. IIRC rocks are at 70 C 3km down.

We have those too. Fish still die. However, I find some fish death acceptable, so long as it doesn't destroy entire species.
It's not just about species for museums. We need fish in numbers. Humans consume immense amounts of everything, including fish, and overfishing is an issue.

I'd say the best bet for today and tomorrow is nuclear full-cycle, using U-238.
Second is geothermal in all forms, not excluding ocean thermal conversion.
Solar and wind lack efficiency: they require a lot of materials to build, and just producing these materials gives more pollution than building and operating a nuclear plant. As auxiliary, fine, but only until we run out of good locations.

"Radiation and waste disposal"?

See, this is the problem with the debate. Nuclear power has all of these negative myths attached to it. In modern nuclear power plants, radiation is as much of a danger is as smog is from a modern coal plant - i.e. not much danger at all. And waste disposal, well, that's sorted too, these days they have it contained in several inches-thick carbon and buried at the bottom of the sea.

I believe nuclear energy is the future, but it is not perfect yet, it still does not produce enough energy output compared to the energy needed to start the process. But, if we continue to finance the nuclear industry, then they will be able to invest in research that will bring us the next generation of energy.

I would voice some sincere doubts there.
Yes, radiation is a negligable figure when looking at modern, well-run, active power plants. But disposal isn't.
Wether you bury it in the sea or in abandoned salt-mines, there is no guarantee that they will remain isolated until the material finally becomes safe in several thousand years. The planet is active, and a cave-in, volcanic activity or a geological shift can expose the waste to the environment again.
The fact that this is highly unlikely to happen during our lifetime shouldn't deceive you about the fact that given a couple thousands of years, anything could happen.

Plus, you can never exclude human error. I grew up in relative proximity to a nuclear power plant (Grafenrheinfeld), and lived through several "accidents" at that plant, luckily all of them minor. Human error was what caused the tragedy in Chernobyl, and the surrounding area won't be safe for human habitation for generations.

Yes, nuclear power could in theory be made safe. But that would mean investing horrendous sums into research, and politicians have this unfortunate habit of rather covering up then preventing problems. Especially when money is involved.
So unless a way is found of really safely disposing of the waste, or a way is found to make nuclear fusion profitable, I personally would feel better if the world concentrated on other energy sources.

In fact, many people have never left the 30-km zone and are still living there. The fallout was spread over a huge area - not concentrated nearby. The problem is not that Chernobyl and Prypiat were lost, but that other areas became contaminated.
BTW, the rest three reactors of the Chernobyl Power Plant operated until recently, well over a decade after the disaster, and were closed due to age.

Waste disposal is what should, first, be largely replaced with reprocessing, second, what can be handled if stored deep underground.

We could burn hobos.

YAY! :D

Solar and wind lack efficiency: they require a lot of materials to build, and just producing these materials gives more pollution than building and operating a nuclear plant. As auxiliary, fine, but only until we run out of good locations.

I think you're assuming we'd build massive solar farms over many acres outside the suburbs, which we would; however, more importantly, we'd be using all of that wasted roof space that's just sitting there right now.. millions of unused acres. I recently saw a story on a massive warehouse in Long Beach, one of the largest in the world, that put solar panels on its roof.. it's producing more energy than it's using now. That's the key, I think.. that kind of improvement can be done with simple tax incentives, similar to the ones the govenment hands out for smog checks. I think it could work.

nucleair fussion looks promissing although the technology is still in the beginning of development.
and you could also trie to save energy and equip most houses with solar panels or at least solar collectors (to warm water using sunlight)

I think you're assuming we'd build massive solar farms over many acres outside the suburbs, which we would; however, more importantly, we'd be using all of that wasted roof space that's just sitting there right now.. millions of unused acres.
It can work, as auxiliary. However, the power for US is just 150W/m^2, and with efficiency applied just 12W/m^2. How much power are you using now? I guess over a kW. So it can work for private homes, but for large building the power collected isn't so great.
And let alone industry... Industry needs much more serious sources.

Though I really think it would be nice to at least power private homes mostly with solar power. If only the cells were cheaper.


For wind:
If this - "The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than 16 billion GJ of electricity—more than one and one-half times the electricity consumed in the United States in 2000." - is correct (found in WP), then wind is basically out of consideration, as even the entire territory would collect 1.5 times the consumption - any practical fraction would give much less.

Besides, we should just fire our nuclear waste into the sun.Hell fucking no. The rate at which rockets blow up in the atmosphere is far too high. Just imagine what would happen if just one rocket loaded with nuclear waste blew up in the atmosphere. Or do you happen to be a fan of Chernobyl type incidents? :p

The answer to nuclear waste is the breeder reactor. These reactors produce virtually no radioactive waste whatsoever. I'm also happy to go with a mix of wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, biodiesel, hydroelectric and tidal power stations. Anything else?