Where should we focus our energy concerns

[billvon 3,107]

>So what should we do?

Well, let's go by sectors.

1. Motor fuels. Start diversification of motor vehicles immediately. Aim for significant fractions of:
-Clean diesels. These can run on either petro diesel or biodiesel.
-Natural gas. These can run on well gas or biogas.
-Ethanol. Require all gas cars to be E85 compatible.
-Electrics. These can be either pluggable hybrids or pure electrics.
-External combustion hybrids. They will run on anything burnable.

2. Infrastructure support. Enable development/production of:
-Offshore gas terminals, to allow transportation of natural gas and biogas
-Ethanol pipelines and distribution facilities.
-Arid farming techniques, to get more fuel out of an acre-foot of water.

3. Electrical power generation. Our current mix is this:
Coal 50%
Nuclear 18%
Hydro 15%
Natural gas 13%
Renewables (other than hydro) 2%

Aim for this mix:

Coal 25%
Nuclear 30% (baseline generation)
Hydro 15% (peaker generation)
Natural gas/biogas 10% (surplus goes to motor fuels) (peaker)
Wind 10%
Solar 10%

>begin pouring funding into fusion development.

We've been doing that for about 40 years now. Not much to show for it. It's a good idea, but is a long way off (and holds many of the same risks that modern nuclear plants pose.) For the near future, one of the current fission designs (the AP600, the CANDU, the PBMR, the thorium reactor) is going to get us more for our money.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Recycle intestinal gas.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[miked10270 0]

Quote

And we still need to drill offshore and in ANWAR....

Of course we do. It'll wait until it's economically viable & neccessary. Get the cheaper stuff first.

How long do we want it to last? Let's say it'll last 30 years at present consumption... Do we want to pull it out of the ground in the same old way and use it in the same old way? At the same old rate?

OR... Do we want to be able to use it a lot more slowly? Maybe with less refinement? Use it to SUPPLEMENT other energy sources (by which I mean Bio-Fuels, Wind /Wave / Solar / Hydro power sources)?

Fossil Fuels took thousands upon thousands of years to form. It appears we're going to use it all within two centuries (!) with little thought to what'll replace it when it's gone.

It's a strange way of doing things... I mean, none of us would wilfully spend our entire years earnings in one week knowing that after that, we starve. WE spend what we've got as we're getting it.

Surely it should be the same with energy?

The question "How much would OIL have to be before drilling in ANWAR is acceptable?" was asked.

How much will energy have to cost before SOLAR PANELS (Wind Farms etc...) start to look damned cheap?

Of course, these things take oil to build, so as the price of oil rises, then so does their cost. So when should we buy into sustainable energy? Now, when it can be done at large cost? Or in fifty years time, when the cost is impossible?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

leave ANWAR alone for a time of TRUE crisis. IE - there is not oil left, or a war with the Middle East.

What price would a gallon of gas have to reach, before you would agree to drilling in ANWAR?

when there's no one else out there selling us oil, John. Let's drain them first.

I agree with that, but it would be nice if we had the infrastructure in place, that we it would literally be as easy as "flipping the switch."

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[niolosoiale 0]

Quote

>begin pouring funding into fusion development.

We've been doing that for about 40 years now. Not much to show for it. It's a good idea, but is a long way off (and holds many of the same risks that modern nuclear plants pose.) For the near future, one of the current fission designs (the AP600, the CANDU, the PBMR, the thorium reactor) is going to get us more for our money.

We need more reactors, a domestic reprocessing facility, and enough breeder reactors to make sure we get the biggest bang for the buck. But at the same time we need to hurry and get some big holes dug in the ground. We still need to get all of our current spent rods out of temp storage.

I would also say on top of all the land we turn into waste storage, we set up massive solar farm arrays, that way the land can be twice as useful.

Of course for hydrogen power, we need to have reactors dedicated to powering electrolosis facilities, and frankly I'd be fond of a few plants dedicated to desalination facilities.

There's just no end to the benefits nuclear power can provide and the risks are quite manageable.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>The price to have a photovoltaic system installed is between $10 and $20. per watt.

$6/watt for grid intertie, $8/watt for battery backed. Grid intertie has no maintenance associated with it. (Other than hosing off the panels once in a while.)

Average cost for a 2500 watt system is about $22,000-$24,000 and thats without customization or any govt. subsidies. That doesn't include the price of a water heating system. This will only produce 30% to 50% of a homes electricity needs under ideal conditions. I expect the cost PW to rise in the near future if there is a sharp increase in demoand for PV cells and then drop off as more become available due to more manufacturers. I'm not trying to deride the positive aspects of solar, I only see it as a barely viable option for those who live in the Sunbelt States

Hmmmm... maybe I need to take another look at solar. I used to market them in the early 1980's but I thought it was over once they removed the Federal and State tax credits in 1984.

-

[SpeedRacer 1]

http://www.b3ta.com/challenge/energy/ Here are posted some interesting solutions to the energy problem.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[penniless 0]

Our focus should be on conservation. Until we stop wasting energy we will not solve the problem.

[Zep 0]

I think the future might see helium3 used as a safer nuclear fuel.

Gone fishing

[penniless 0]

Quote

I think the future might see helium3 used as a safer nuclear fuel.

Fusion - energy source of the future, and always will be.
www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/fusion/famous.asp

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Fusion - energy source of the future, and always will be.
www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/fusion/famous.asp

Yeah... Fusion! It's just around the corner.
That's why the link for it is to The Science Museum.

To paraphrase Capt. Edmund Blackadder: "In the last 50 years, Nuclear Fusion has advanced about as far as an ant with some particularly heavy shopping"!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Wendy W.

[funjumper101 15]

A decentralized solar power system makes way more sense to me than nuclear power.

Every home that has a decent southern exposure should have solar panels installed. The systems should be connected to the grid. Power companies would be required to purchase the power at wholesale nuclear power rates (or issue the customer credit).

Tax incentives would be used to fund the retrofitting of existing homes and the installation on new construction.

There is a company out of Los Altos, CA that has produced solar power producing roofing tiles. Other companies are doing similar things.

Peak power consumption is during daylight hours. The net effect of tens or hundreds of thousands of small contributions to the grid during peak demand means less power plants are needed to meet the demand. This means that new power plants would not be required. Nuclear, wind, coal, it doesn't matter. We wouldn't need them.

A good friend is an MIT graduate that specializes in energy savings and systems. This idea has been around for many years. The technology to make it happen is here now. All that is lacking is political will.

Solar cells make electricity whenever there is light. Less light = less electricity
Clouds/rain = less light, not none.

Nuclear power generates high level waste that will be hideaously expensive to dispose of. If the government didn't pick up the tab for the disposal, nuclear power would be far too expensive.

[billvon 3,107]

>Nuclear power generates high level waste that will be
>hideaously expensive to dispose of.

Generates far less nuclear waste than a coal fired power plant.

>If the government didn't pick up the tab for the disposal, nuclear
>power would be far too expensive.

If the nuclear industry was held to the same safety standards as the coal industry, it would be cheaper than coal power.