Bad couple of years for energy.

[BigguyZ]

So it's been a bad few years for any prospect for the US to find more abundant sources of energy, it seems to me.

I really want to reduce our dependance for foreign oil, and I'm all for electric cars and a beefier power grid and supply. If the US converted from coal plants to nuclear, as many coutries have done, then there'd be much more power available and we all could drive electric cars. AND, our carbon emissions would be lower as well. Newer plants would be safer than the few ones we have in operation now, and with breeder reactors, they would create much less waste than current plants create as well.

But first we had the BP leak, which ended any real discussion of expanding domestic oil production in the near future, which I think is necessary to reduce the amount of $$ going to shady countries, and is needed while the electric grid is improved.

Then, with the earthquak and tsunami in Japan, no one will touch building more nuclear plants in the US, for fear of the same thing happening.

So yeah, I think that sucks. I don't see wind or solar power providing plentiful energy anytime soon- so it looks like it's going to be business as usual for the US when it comes to our energy sources...

[dbhost]

That is what happens when people have knee jerk reactions to what they see in the sensationalized media...

The technology is there, just not in a scale where it is economically viable, but there are drop in bio-replacements for gasoline (aviation gas at this time) and diesel fuel. The quantities that they are able to produce at this time are so small as to be a mere experimental drop in the bucket, but if they can get over the production capacity hurdle, and do it domestically we might just have a real chance of weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, and that would be a fantastic thing...

Electric cars I honestly believe, at least in the form they are in now, just aren't up to snuff. Too limited in range and capacity for anything beyond mere get to and from work in an urban environment type vehicles. What does the family that can only afford one car do when they want to take a trip between major cities, say Houston to Dallas? The range just isn't there...

With the price of oil and fuel so high again, perhaps we will eventually get the political, and business will to dump the R&D money into alternative fuels / bio fuels that we should have been doing all along for the last 40+ years... If history is any indicator though...

[Warren]

We have enough oil up here to make the State of Alaska the 6th largest oil producer in the world. Trust me, when it's really needed, the oil will flow. Washington won't be able to print drilling permits fast enough. I'm guessing that at $5.00 a gallon for gas . . . the politicians will have to ignore the politics, address reality and do whatever is necessary to buy the votes to get reelected. That means, wait for it . . . cheaper, more readily available oil supplies. Oil, it's what currently drives the world economy.

As far as I know nobody makes an electric 4wd truck large enough to haul my photo gear and other equipment off road. I also haul fire wood and make a bi-weekly trash run down to the city garbage transfer station. Electiric cars probably will not replace gas operated vehicles . . . I've put my money on hydrogen power, less of an impact on the environment. Batteries just use too much oil and coal produced electricity in their manufacture and the infrastructure just isn't there.

Once oil nears depletion, sit back and watch the rapid development of alternatives. Profit will drive the change, not government subsidies. I'm 64 now and doubt that I will see the necessity for something other than oil. I doubt my daughter, in her early 30's, will see any major reduction in petroleum use. There's just too much of it available, it's relatively cheap to produce, and the world thrives on it.

My grand-kids will probably move seamlessly into hydrogen powered automobiles, trucks, and motor-cycles. This transition will occur rapidly and only when the need becomes acute.

Whatever the alternative energy source it will not come from politicians nor scientists, but engineers currently employed by . . . surprise! . . . large publicly owned companies such as British Petroleum and Ford. Or, quite possibly, some edisonisque individual in his garage. They are driven by stockholders to do what is best for the bottom line. Government entities simply respond too slowly to have much effect on the change from petroleum to whatever alternative proves to be the best.

This gets longer and longer . . . and more boring I'm sure. It's turning into a stream of consciousness, so I'll stop now.

[All Thumbs]

I had heard a MIT scientist refer to pebble reactors or something? I think he was on 60-minutes or something, and referring to "safe" nuclear.

The idea with the design was that even without water to cool it, it wouldn't melt down.

[woodturner]

Then, with the earthquak and tsunami in Japan, no one will touch building more nuclear plants in the US, for fear of the same thing happening.

I don't think there will be any effect on nuclear reactors in the US.

It's a little like saying we are all at risk of Malaria because it is an epidemic in some parts of the world.

The reactors and safety regulations in Japan are nothing like the requirements here. The Japanese reactors could never have been built in the US, according to friends who work for a company that is the worldwide leader in nuclear plants.

Newer plants are also passively cooled - if the power fails, the reaction stops and the plants cool down. Think of it like a big bowl, where the power is pumped out rather than in. If the pumps stop pumping, the bowl fills with water, stopping the reaction and cooling the fuel rods.

[BigguyZ]

I don't think there will be any effect on nuclear reactors in the US.

It's a little like saying we are all at risk of Malaria because it is an epidemic in some parts of the world.

The reactors and safety regulations in Japan are nothing like the requirements here. The Japanese reactors could never have been built in the US, according to friends who work for a company that is the worldwide leader in nuclear plants.

Newer plants are also passively cooled - if the power fails, the reaction stops and the plants cool down. Think of it like a big bowl, where the power is pumped out rather than in. If the pumps stop pumping, the bowl fills with water, stopping the reaction and cooling the fuel rods.

I wasn't saying the Japanse issue would affect the reactors in the US. My point was that the energy policy in the US is driven largely by public opinion. The general public are largely ignorant of the current standards and advancements that have been made int he field of nuclear energy. They have fears of meltdowns and Chernobyl, or 3-mile island (which is actually an example of how the safety measures in place PREVENTED a real disaster).

The point is- this issue only bolsters the negative public opinion regarding nuclear plants, and provides a very recent example on the dangers of nuclear power.

Regardless of how we run our cars, we need a better power grid and a better way to deliver it. People don't like coal plants because it's dirty, but they won't accept nulcear as an option. A shame, really.

[Shep]

I've got a good friend who is an Engineer for AEP that has been trying to build a coal fired power plant in Arkansas for the last 10 years. Trust me, the regulations are rediculous. They wanted to build Nuclear, but they couldn't get the government to sign off. The nuclear plant would have been more powerful and cheaper to build. They've faced over 100 lawsuits so far this year which halts production and increase costs, which get passed on to the consumer. He tells me that without so much government papwerwork and lawsuits, the project would have been done about 7 years ago. Now it won't be done for another 3-5.

[LCHIEN]

So it's been a bad few years for any prospect for the US to find more abundant sources of energy, it seems to me.

I really want to reduce our dependance for foreign oil, and I'm all for electric cars and a beefier power grid and supply. If the US converted from coal plants to nuclear, as many coutries have done, then there'd be much more power available and we all could drive electric cars. AND, our carbon emissions would be lower as well. Newer plants would be safer than the few ones we have in operation now, and with breeder reactors, they would create much less waste than current plants create as well.

But first we had the BP leak, which ended any real discussion of expanding domestic oil production in the near future, which I think is necessary to reduce the amount of $$ going to shady countries, and is needed while the electric grid is improved.

Then, with the earthquak and tsunami in Japan, no one will touch building more nuclear plants in the US, for fear of the same thing happening.

So yeah, I think that sucks. I don't see wind or solar power providing plentiful energy anytime soon- so it looks like it's going to be business as usual for the US when it comes to our energy sources...

You forgot the big coal mine disaster at the Massey mine in Upper Big Branch, West Va. - 29 miners died last year April, the latest in a long string of coal mining disasters.

[LCHIEN]

WARNING: As a Moderator, I remind you that political discussion are not permitted here. Don't let government policies creep into discussion of Energy issue - I know they can be closely related.

[BigguyZ]

WARNING: As a Moderator, I remind you that political discussion are not permitted here. Don't let government policies creep into discussion of Energy issue - I know they can be closely related.

Understood. Can policy be discussed in a non-partisan manner? I don't think it's split entirely down the middle on who supports domestic drilling and nuclear.

Also, my point is more in regards to how these negative events color the opinions of the public as a whole- regardless of the accuracy of those opinions. This affects policy, as people will rally against the buiding of new plants, as already noted.

[cabinetman]

Also, my point is more in regards to how these negative events color the opinions of the public as a whole- regardless of the accuracy of those opinions. This affects policy, as people will rally against the buiding of new plants, as already noted.

The negative as well as the positive events has its effect on public opinion. With the fuel costs as unpredictable as they are, auto manufacturers are marketing the heck out of hybrid and electric cars. I doubt that will solve the energy crisis, as there will still be fuel involved either way.

.

[DrChas]

It is obvious to me that we WILL reduce our use of imported oil. The question is whether we will do it in a logical and planned way, or will it happen when oil gets so expensive that we can't afford it, and sufficient new wells/solar panels/nuclear power plants/what have you will take a decade to build. I hope its the former.

It is also obvious that the solution needs to be comprehensive, and take place at all levels of society, from increased conservation, and domestic power production (read roof top solar), to the construction of innovative new ways of producing energy. For example, the limited range of electric cars could be mitigated by trains that were designed to take them between cities, or by producing trailers with generators that could supplement the batteries for long trips. My guess is that when all is said and done society will look quite different than it does today.

For my own part, I have been setting a goal of using slightly less energy each year. One year I insulated my house, another I put in solar panels, another I got a bike for local trips, things like that. I still drive to work, but on nice days I ride my bike, and when I know I won't need my car I take the bus. I also know that if gas goes to more than I want to pay the bus or bike is always available to me.

[alpha]

Actually, when discussing energy you need to keep in mind there are two different uses of energy. One is for powering vehicles, the other is to produce electricity. If you separate the two you get a better idea of what we are up against.

Of course, powering vehicles is almost all oil. You've got some hybrids but I have not heard of any nuclear or wind powered vehicles yet. We can make an additive (ethanol) for the oil to reduce the amount used, but not much else. Anyway, it is kind of a bad idea using food to power vehicles. Does anyone seriously think that we can eliminate the internal combustion engine? Considering the number of vehicles on the road, weaning off of oil is not going to happen. We will either drill our own oil, become more dependent on foreign oil, or have our useage regulated.

In the US, most of our electricity is generated from coal. Here are the breakdowns that I found:

Coal - 45%
Oil - 13%
Nat. Gas - 23%
Nuclear - 12%
Renewable - 7%

(These are estimates)

Coal is the major resource used in producing electricity. The use of electricity is increasing each year. It is easy to see this concept. If electricity demand increases 3% per year, what resource will you use to produce it? If you don't like coal, what would you replace it with? Not enough wind mills to do it. If you eliminate all nuclear, what will you replace it with?

I don't have any solutions, but the problem is a very complex one.

Bob

[Russianwolf]

Actually, when discussing energy you need to keep in mind there are two different uses of energy. One is for powering vehicles, the other is to produce electricity. If you separate the two you get a better idea of what we are up against.

Of course, powering vehicles is almost all oil. You've got some hybrids but I have not heard of any nuclear or wind powered vehicles yet. We can make an additive (ethanol) for the oil to reduce the amount used, but not much else. Anyway, it is kind of a bad idea using food to power vehicles. Does anyone seriously think that we can eliminate the internal combustion engine? Considering the number of vehicles on the road, weaning off of oil is not going to happen. We will either drill our own oil, become more dependent on foreign oil, or have our useage regulated.

In the US, most of our electricity is generated from coal. Here are the breakdowns that I found:

Coal - 45%
Oil - 13%
Nat. Gas - 23%
Nuclear - 12%
Renewable - 7%

(These are estimates)

Coal is the major resource used in producing electricity. The use of electricity is increasing each year. It is easy to see this concept. If electricity demand increases 3% per year, what resource will you use to produce it? If you don't like coal, what would you replace it with? Not enough wind mills to do it. If you eliminate all nuclear, what will you replace it with?

I don't have any solutions, but the problem is a very complex one.

Bob

Using Corn to make Ethanol I agree is a bad idea. But it's not the only way to make it, Switchgrass is a much better source as you can get several harvests in a season compared to one with corn. Also, growing switchgrass improves the soil unlike repeatedly growing corn.

One other thing you forgot to mention is Bio-Diesel and I'm not talking about recycled fryer oil, but Diesel fuel made from vegetable oils. Soybeans are a prime source and could help offset some of the petro that we need. Palm oil is commonly used in some countries but I don't think we can grow that easily here.

Point is, we have viable options already to decrease dependence if we choose to take them. So far we haven't because gas prices are reasonable. The higher they go, the more demand you'll see for wider production of the alternatives.

[BigguyZ]

But aren't things like ethanol or biodeisel and other oil replacements/ additives more costly form an energy standpoint than oil? Maybe I'm wrong, but I heard that making ethanol is incredibly power inefficient. Also, the only reason ethanol is financially viable is because subsidies reduce the cost of corn below the cost of production. That doesn't mean it's really that cheap. It just means that the public funds it through taxes, which is given to farmers as subsidies. No subsidies, corn costs skyrocket, and corn ethanol becomes VERY expensive.