Our New Energy Crisis
|
|
almost four years ago, when oil was trading at around $40 a barrel, Paul Roberts wrote a story for Mother Jones on a bleak scenario gaining currency among energy insiders, but not yet in the mainstream consciousness: peak oil, basically the notion that the world's petroleum resources are nearing exhaustion. If the theory held true, Roberts warned, oil prices could soon leap to "perhaps as high as $100 per barrel—a disaster if we don't have a cost-effective alternative fuel or technology in place."
Welcome to the disaster: $100-a-barrel oil is in the rearview mirror, and no cost-effective (or even cost-prohibitive) alternative has emerged. The most dire consequences of this failing—hurricanes, drought, extinction—are occurring far more rapidly than even Slideshow Al could have predicted four years ago. And then there's the war.
It's easy enough to blame Dick Cheney, Big Oil, Detroit—all of whom have done their part in obstructing progress. But their chicanery distracts us from the far greater problem, one that, unfortunately, comes down to Organic Chemistry 101. Every technological advance of the last 150 years has been powered by a unique, extremely energy-dense, but finite—and, as it turns out, planet-killing—source of fuel. Switching away from fossil energy requires an economic and social transformation at least as great as the Industrial Revolution. And we have to build this new economy on the fumes of the old, hoping that we don't run out of gas, or ice caps, before we get there. As Roberts points out in this special issue on energy, if we sit on our hands or let the process be hijacked by vested interests, "there may not be enough crude left in the ground to fuel a second try."
This change will be painful. Building a new energy economy will require enormous government and private investment. It will involve massive workforce upheaval and possibly physical dislocation. The conservation measures demanded will make victory gardens or Jimmy Carter donning a sweater look like three-day diets.
The last time we took such issues seriously, in Carter's day, it was called an energy crisis. Thermostats were turned down across the land, and we went into R&D overdrive. And that crisis was only about the price of oil—which topped out at all of $78 in today's dollars. Few were talking about global warming or blood for oil.
Today's energy crisis is on a different scale. We're reliant on an ever-more dubious cast of characters to provide us power. And if you think the mortgage meltdown is troubling, wait till the markets discover the real price of carbon and realize that our entire economy is, essentially, built on a planetary accounting fraud.
Greenhouse gases, geology, and geopolitics give us no choice but to change our ways. The truth is, that change has already begun. Just as we've gone, in the space of a few years, from debating the validity of climate change to being confronted daily with the rapidity of glacial melting, so too will the shift to a postfossil economy, now largely imperceptible, soon be painfully evident. We can—as we did when confronted with the Great Depression or World War II—overhaul our society and economy and emerge stronger, or we can get swamped by change, watching helplessly as others ride the wave of postcarbon innovation. Will we be Chrysler or Toyota?
What we can't bank on is that some geek in Silicon Valley will, on her own, come up with the perfect solution. Nor will the treasured fixes of the left—solar panels on every roof, banning Hummers, forgoing imported tomatoes—be sufficient. The questions we face are on the order of: Are you willing to consider a nuclear plant in your back yard? If not your yard, whose? And if not a reactor, how about damming a bucolic river, or windmills that ruin a cherished view? What new regulations and taxes do we need to kick-start the transformation?
Forcing the nation to confront such questions is the most critical task our next president faces—more important than resolving the war, bolstering the economy, or fixing health care. As Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) has warned, the president will have advisers whispering that she or he "can appear forward-looking on energy with a few carefully chosen initiatives.... without asking for sacrifices or risking the possible failure of a more controversial energy policy."
We are guaranteed better leadership than Bush: John McCain introduced the first carbon cap-and-trade bill, and both Clinton and Obama have presented solid, at times groundbreaking, energy plans. But better isn't good enough. We need someone who recognizes the urgency and enormity of the task at hand, who won't fall for bromides like "energy independence" or "clean coal," and, most of all, who can shock the rest of us out of our complacency and ask for sacrifices. Let's hope that kind of change is in the offing.
I drive a Porsche Cayenne, and while not a Hummer I still get stares from the smug people. Some of these smug people will hop into their mini-Suburbans or Priuses and drive a couple hundred miles to kayak down one of our majestic Sierra rivers.
Until we are ready to give up the little joys in our lives, like my Cayenne or a weekend of rafting, we aren't ready to solve the energy crisis.
One reason that the concept of peak oil is dismissed so casually by the main-stream media is that it is so often presented that way, and no one with a glimmer of knowledge about oil markets believes that to be true. Even for people without that glimmer of knowledge, it's all too easy to dismiss. Remember the oil shocks of the 1970s? Everyone said we were running out of oil then. Well, did we?? It's the same kind of people saying the same kinds of things now. Ergo, "peak oil" is nonsense.
It's not nonsense at all. Peak oil is about flows - about extraction, transportation, refining - that is, about what usually is called oil production.
Oil production is normally given in units of millions of (42-gallon) barrels per day. For almost three years now, liquid oil plus some other liquid fuels such as ethanol and propane have together amounted to around 85 million barrels per day. (As it happens, that's right around 1000 barrels per second, and the U.S. consumes one quarter of it.)
It is possible that the daily production of 85 million barrels will go up at some point, driven by extremely high prices. Whether or not it does, at some time in the future daily production will take a turn southward and never come back up to the highest level again. That is the peak -- peak oil.
When peak oil happens, there will still be lots and lots of petroleum in the ground, we just will not be able to produce it as quickly, primarily for geological and geographical reasons.
So, that's the deal. Peak oil is real and the consequences will be quite nasty, but running out of oil in the foreseeable future is not. Spread the word.
It was very disappointing to read that line, because that is not what "peak oil" means.
It means gradually diminishing supplies, not running out.
Not that that should provide anyone with any comfort, mind you.
It's the equivalent to being on a respirator and having someone crimp the hose.
Bad times are here.
Her? What a nice snippet of affirmative action journalism. Right, like the silicon valley is just chock full of innovative women-geeks...(It's not).
The next stage for the PNAC strategists is to target specific races with bioweaponry, to "cleanse" the world of competition for oil.
Sounds too dark? Remember the "inside job" of the anthrax scare game post 9.11, and multiply that sort of thing by a million.
#######
What we are facing is a Third-Way (socialist/communist/capitalist) conspiracy to equalize the world's economies, as preface to installing one-world government; a plan hatched during the 1940s Gatt formulations.
Keep in mind that there is no PEAK OIL crisis--only a decades-long, purposeful cap on searching and drilling and refining for oil, in order to put the world in crisis-mode. Using food to produce fuel was/is part of the conspiracy to create riots, in order to destabilize governments, as is this so-called "war on terror" also part of the secret plan.
Read and learn and teach the TRUTH:
Planned Destruction of America
http://planneddestructionofamerica.blogspot.com/
#######
#######
Nuclear energy is radiation sickness, a dirty toxic energy system that is not in resonance with the future or with anyone who truly cares for the environment - the price of extraction for instance is more energy intensive - the indigenous peoples know what this writer won't ever know - go ask those on whose land the uranium is buried or the Aborigines of Australia who know the danger of unleashing such a poisonous substance - of course recyling it into DU weapons is one way of getting rid of it and another of ensuring the planet has a deadly dose of it for centuries
this unthinking article does not see that there is NO plan B and that change if it is to come at all, especially in the US will require a totally different mindset than that of big business and big government - that has manipulated and shaped this world to its current tipping point
yes there is going to be trauma, it comes from resisting what is - and peak oil, global warming is what IS thinking that man can manipulate it and rely on the government - whatever that is these days to 'fix' it for you is sheer delusion built upon unconscious acceptance of dogma - a lack of critical thinking in other words.
the world is committed to change it has no choice - soon you will see that as plain as the nose on your face there will be no denying it - it is already happening in other parts of the world, and it will happen to the most narcissistic nation on the face of the earth - in fact it already is and you cannot stop it only watch and prepare yourself and family to somehow move through it
good luck
Wrong. Very wrong. This idea leads to confusion. Go study the subject before you write about the subject. Go back and do more research.
Candidate 2: Hilary: Investigate Oil Companies and institute price controls making a bad situation far worse, gas rationing follows and national unrest ensues. Ignorant comments about people not being able to get to work says that she has no understanding of peak oil and the dire situation that the world faces.
Candidate 3: Obama: Investigate price of oil but do nothing to relieve prices, if situation is bad enough institute controls, but with very little political clout he'll have a hard time working with Congress.
In summation: all of the major candidates have no clue what kind of hell storm they are heading into, and i doubt if any of them can preserve peace if we truly have hit peak oil.
And oil isn't nearing exhaustion; global production is peaking. But in it's now inescapable effects, worldwide, that will be quiet terrifying enough.
The thumbnail outlines of the crisis are these:
1) The US is collapsing, like the SU before it, and from mainly the same causes. But it's likely to be worse for the US.
2) Just behind Peak Oil, Peak Everything is looming up.
3) There are too many humans in the world, by a factor of about ten times, and it looks increasingly as if there's not much chance now of preventing a terrible die-off of billions of us this century, everywhere, including in the rich, or formerly rich, countries.
4) The worst case for climate shift is looking -- really terrifyingly -- more and more possible, as the ACCELERATING bad news comes in: runaway positive feedbacks which fry and sterilise the planet. This may still be avoidale. But no-one knows for sure, and it would take determined global efforts which may simply be beyond our flawed species.
Sweet dreams........
But I doubt it.
Maybe we should pay attention to how the Iraqis cope with power only a few hours of each day....
But, there's hope on the horizon. Anyplace you have a sufficient accumulation of B.S.(no, not Congress, ACTUAL B.S., like out the back end of the bull, there), you have the potential to get some 'green' gas. Methane. Which can be compressed, stored, transported, and used in different applications. You got your ethanol, you got your solar, you even have wind power, the battery cars seem to be coming along nicely, and there's more ways after that which can be utilized to provide forward propulsion. But, what it really boils down to I think is an economic mercy game, it's the oil suppliers' way of making their criticism related to the United States and the war deeply felt throughout our economy. Now you have the world hunger violin concerto, the fun never stops...
on the positive side, though, more private citizens are studying things like biodiesel and ethanol production, small-scale fills the fuel tank, too, sans taxes, so there'll be some kind of future contest about that, too, but at least it's some kind of minimal progress...foreign country-types with deep pockets still have their hooks into us, though, and they have enough coin to play around in US politics and whine and snivel about 'the environment', so we're going to get played like a dimestore guitar again this year, and probably next...we have to get smarter, and break out some fresh paper and sharp pencils...buy em while the stores still take dollars...yeah, I think Europe is in on the game, too...Norway's got oil, heck, we've got oil, but the people with the Big Stacks like to watch people squirm, I think...makes em feel Most Powerful...box em in, ear-tag em, harvest that paycheck, kick em in the @#$...do it again next month. Nice people...
The only real solution is to do as Iceland is doing – establish a national strategy to convert from a carbon based economy to a hydrogen based economy.
Fortunately for Iceland, their nation is quite small and can make rapid turns with dexterity and commitment. Our country has many "diverse" interests to coalesce and align for such a change. We are more like a giant sea-going container ship - it takes a long time to turn it around.
Iceland is also blessed with abundant “clean” electricity that they use to convert water to hydrogen. They already have modular and mobile hydrogen "filling stations" that are no larger than a family sized RV. The unit is pulled to an existing petrol station, taken off its wheels, plugged into an electrical power outlet and a water hose...and presto chango... clean burning hydrogen for your truly eco-friendly hydrogen powered car.
We have the ability to generate abundant electricity in this country in manner that does not impact the environment, too. Nuclear. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace now realizes that much of the Green movement is politically motivated vs. scientifically based. As a result, Patrick Moore now supports nuclear power.
You can love your Toyota Prius, but you have to make electricity for it. How much pollution is that Prius really creating?
Go with facts…not emotions.
Oil supplies will be around for hundreds of years, just not in the quantities needed to support a western industrialized lifestyle for all, and certainly not at a price all can afford.
The “developing world” which hasn’t reaped the benefits of inexpensive petroleum energy, simply won’t, as they are priced out of the market. The industrial powers will continue to maneuver and position politically and militarily to secure petroleum supplies. This trend has been apparent for decades and will only intensify, with smaller countries aligning themselves under larger ones.
Our latest resource war in Iraq is nothing new as countries or alliances of countries have done the same for centuries whether the commodity is salt, land, cattle, coal and now oil. The calculus may get bloody from here on out as the larger powers bump into each other vying for the same finite resources.
If anyone still prays, pray that technology will make the potential upcoming conflict unnecessary, because the technology certainly isn’t available now to replace petroleum driven transport which accounts for the lion’s share of the US’ consumption.
Physics and nature still vote last, and they are not casting their vote for societies that insist on driving the family truckasaurus around at the defacto speed limit of 80mph from the suburbs to their jobs which are a county away. We cast our lot with urban petroleum dependent living a long, long time ago and its way to late to change that paradigm now, so enjoy the ride while it lasts.
of Americans but I doubt it.It's going to take a LOT worse than this to make Americans wake up and realize how much the Ultimate Players have played them. And by that time either the bullets will be flying or the Internment Camps will be doing a brisk business. Lovely future to bring a child into, what?
The reason for the high cost of gasoline is the failure of our government to act in a responsible manner. The "Energy-Independence and Security-Act of 2007” requires a 35-mpg standard by 2020. Whoop de do!!! Evidently none of the people who created and signed this act did any research on available technology. To require 35-mpg is ridiculous considering the achievements of Shell Oil with modified automobiles; 49.73-mpg around 1939; 149.95-mpg with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35-mpg with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59-mpg with a 1959 Opel in 1973. If you lived in Europe, during 1983, you could purchase a 72-mpg diesel or 65.7-mpg gas fueled Peugeot. Toyota is complaining they can’t meet the mpg standard. Evidently some people at Toyota didn’t get the memo about the 104-mpg diesel sold in Europe during 2002. Do you wonder why these automobiles were not available in the USA? In 2006 every congressional member of the energy committees was informed of this technology, they did nothing. Ask your members of congress for an explanation why these automobiles were not sold here, I did, they don’t respond.
A Philippine inventor has fueled engines with the components of water for more than 30-years, the Japanese have a water fueled mini-van on the street. This is not new technology, more than 200-years ago one of the attempts to make a self-powered vehicle was fueled with the components of water. The technology is not only applicable to automobiles, any device fueled with ”fossil” oil can be fueled with water. In January 2007, Dominion Energy sent a “doom and gloom’ letter to customers, I responded with information about commercially available water fueled electricity generators. Dominion did not respond, consider this when paying your electric bill.
You hear, and read, of the presidential candidates expounding about our reliance on foreign oil. Yet, every candidate for president was offered a free computer disk with videos of six automobiles fueled with water, none wanted the disk. You are told there is an oil shortage. A chairman of Exxon/mobile doesn’t think so nor does the governor of Alaska. The governor says there is a 200-year oil supply for the USA in that state.
Documentation, and videos, for the above will be found: www.byronwine.com.
It is apparent there is an effort by our government, and major media, to keep the citizens in the dark concerning achieved energy technology. We must make all politicians, including wannabes, address the energy issue with truth and solutions, not rhetoric. DO SOMETHING don’t whine about the cost of gasoline. Demand that our employees earn their salary by action, if not, replace them.
Another issue, investigate the privately owned Federal Reserve System.
Byron Wine
Manassas, VA
The rational thing to do is to halt new nuclear and coal fired power plant construction should be halted, the nuclear until solar and wind are producing as much power as nuclear does today, the coal permanently.
It's not a technological problem, it's an economic one. Who is building solar power manufacturing capacity today? Not many people in the U.S. - because fossil fuel interests control the current government and therefore also the energy markets.
Try www.solardaily.com for one of many examples.
At least you provide references which one can cite – I appreciate that. Attesting to their veracity is another matter.
Having grown up in the pre-fuel injector age, I recall seeing various attempts in the 1960s to improve gasoline mileage during the Muscle Car glory days when 12 mpg was the norm. One involved a water-injection system that claimed to distribute energy more evenly during combustion. I often thought that if these innovations were such great ideas, why didn’t everyone have one? The answer I usually heard was the conspiracy stories. As I aged (i.e., learned via the School of Hard Knocks), questioned this thinking.
By definition a conspiracy requires more than one person, and in this case, a supposed wide-spread oil company and governmental cover-up. Do you really believe that many people could successfully organize something on this scale and then keep their mouths shut for this long? I don’t think they are that good.
Secondly, why do these great inventors sell out? Seems some one of these inventors who has totally idealistic and incorruptible values would stand up and say “No” to Big Oil.
Thirdly, what does Detroit have to benefit by keeping their cars’ mileage low? Detroit had its lunch handed to them when the higher-mileage Japanese carts hit the market when gas was 50 cents per gallon. Don’t you think Detroit would “bring out the lumber” to better the imports on mileage?
Lastly, any reputable scientific research, in fact the very basis for being called reputable, is repeatability by anyone anywhere given the proper resources. If all these patents lying around the Canadian and U.S. patent offices worked, why aren’t we seeing people pay the inventor a royalty and put the idea into production?
Sorry, I am not buying your conspiracy theory. But then, I don’t buy the idea that 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy and that an airliner really didn’t hit the Pentagon. However, if you or some Big Oil company offered me enough money…
I love www.snopes.com for researching Internet stories purported as fact. Check it out regarding super carburator claims:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
You state that we could reduce oil consumption by half if those rascally managers would only institute telecommuting. This was an interesting claim so I decided check the facts. I know, I know. Never let facts get in the way of a good argument, but even though forums are fun places to spout off, let’s make sure we are spouting with somewhat accurate data. I offer the following with references. Also note, I would love to telecommute myself and I suspect you would as well, Seth. However, I assume your manager will not let you, and as a result, you were motivated to rant a bit.
Government figures show that the average commute is 12 miles one way. Assume a round trip of 25 miles or one gallon of gas.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/2008_sp_02.pdf
Lister and Harnish estimate 33 million people in our country could telecommute, or given the above, save 33 million gallons of gas per day.
http://www.Undress4Success.com.+Retrieved
According to the March 2008 Energy Information Agency report (EIA, which is part of Department of Energy), the total U.S. petroleum (oil) consumption per day is 20.1 million barrels. Note: one barrel equals 42 U.S. gallons. Of those 20.1 million barrels, 9 million barrels, or 378 million gallons, is gasoline, which includes private, commercial, and military consumption.
If we save 33 million gallons per day out of 378 million, that is a savings of 8.7% per work day.
Gasoline is 45% of total oil consumption per day (9 million divided by 20.1 million). The 8.7% savings of 45% is roughly 4% of all the oil used in this country. Work days represent approximately 250 days per year, or 68% of the year. 68% x the 4% savings per day equals 2.7% savings of oil over one year, cleary not half or 50% as you suggest
btw…the breakdown of U.S. oil consumption per day is:
Total: 20.1 million barrels [one barrel = 42 U.S. gallons]
Gasoline: 9 million barrels
Jet Fuel (both commercial and military): 1.6 million barrels
Distillates (diesel and fuel oil): 4.2 million barrels
Residual Fuel Oil (boilers): 0.6 million barrels
Propane/Propylene (heating and plastics): 1.5 million barrels
Other Oils (lubricants, airplane gas): 3.2 million barrels
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_wpsup_k_4.htm
Thanks for motivating me to look into this and learn a bit more myself!
There is methane and LP as alternatives to gasoline.
Hemp oil is not mentioned as an alternative to its thousands of uses replacing oil, and wood-pulp which is another rapidly diminishing resource. It's medical properties can also reduce the "chemical" footprint created by pharmaceuticals.
Wind can be installed where it doesn't obstruct views, and geo-thermal is much "cleaner" than nuclear.
Processing oil from the oceans algae is another future resource.
Cold? Jacket. Practicality and common sense and maybe a brief study of 'how the pioneers did it', that kind of thing, will take us where we need to go on the user side of this, as far as providing power, well, there's this stuff-place called 'the ocean', and if you look at it, well, it kind of doesn't really hold still, it's always moving, and stuff. If you throw your empty beer can upon the waves, you'll astutely notice a curious up-and-down motion. Hmm. Now, if we were just smart enough to capitalize on that motion, somehow...hmmm...I wonder...(chin scratch)...
We've gotten really ignorant on basic science, and using what's right in front of us in terms of 'energy'. We've been trained to the gas pump, and the monthly utility bill, and well, that sucks. But, it doesn't have to KEEP on sucking, we can like, learn some science, about things like wind, solar, wave, and steam power, and try to be 3% smarter than the problem we're facing.
Water boils at 212F, some assembly required, offer not available in all states etc. Steam locomotives moved hundreds of thousands of pounds if not tons during the late part of the 19th and early part of the 20th century, it's only since the 1950's, approximately, that we developed the REAL killer habit, cars. But, habits can be unlearned. A motorcycle that gets 50-60MPG will take you pretty much anywhere that a car would, see 'jacket'
above. Think smarter, not gooder...
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/ library/index.php?main_page=pr oduct_video_info&products_id=204774-1&showVid=true
However, I do subscribe to a theory that has some similar features. Before you turn dismiss me as a kook, please read and think.
My theory is that a loose coalition - not a tight conspiracy - of people interested in maintaining the economic and political power of the fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of time, money and political capital working to slow the development of atomic fission.
They have supported some strange bedfellows and "damned with faint praise" the only energy technology discovered in the past 100 years that has successfully taken market share from fossil fuels. Despite rumors to the contrary fission has succeeded not because of massive subsidies, but because it is more energy dense, more convenient, more reliable, and less dirty. Uranium and thorium are massively abundant, they have energy density that is more than 6 orders of magnitude greater than oil and they are found in a wide variety of countries, with the majority of the world's supply in stable places like Canada, Australia, and the US.
This power source scares the hell out of the establishment; after all, the power and money that is controlled by the oil, coal and gas interests also fills banks, stock portfolios and government coffers. Nuclear power is more about technical knowledge than about control over resources, so it rewards smart people, not those that can claw their way to the top.
I would feel very comfortable with a fission power plant in my basement; after all, I have lived for months at a time with a plant that was no more than 200 feet away and often no more than a couple of feet away. It was clean, easy to operate, reliable, and produced so little waste that the fuel residues from 14 years of operation would fit below my office desk.
We have an alternative available today. It will take a lot of effort, education, and dedicated work by educated or trained people, but it can be done. Don't expect that it will be done without a struggle; the people who have oil, coal and gas will not give up their markets without some sometimes sneaky, deceptive and nasty tactics.
Also, I find some comments - anarchy, ammo, murder - reprehensible. Is our need for transportation really worth all that? If oil gets too expensive, there are more sane ways to adapt. Carpool, ride a bike. Electric vehicles should become competitive before too long.
Du Anerchri$t$ haf diff3r3nt keebord$ then every1 3l$e?
Green plants, however, have the process figured out - through photosynthesis. We just need more plants and less burning, somehow....
This is, according to many popular authors on the topic, a common misconception. What the 'Peak Oil' debate is really about is when the peak of world oil production will occur, marking the beginning of a long, irreversible decline of this invaluable resource. The rate of discovery for new oil fields has long since peaked, having been in decline for decades. It may not be known with certainty that world production has peaked until production has already been in decline for many years. After that, oil resources won't be 'near exhaustion', but will become scarcer and more expensive due to the factors of increasing demand, political conflict, and possible natural disasters, along with the reality of diminishing supply.
1. Nuclear plants require fast amounts of fossil fuels to build.
2. Uranium requires fossil fuels to extract, refine, and transport. Below certain concentrations, the costs start becoming unworkable.
3. Thirdly, the amount of uranium available is also finite. You know about Peak Oil. Read up on Peak Uranium. There's a HUGE article on it in Wikipedia.
There appears to be no let up in industrialized society’s voracious demand for the use of carbon based fuels to energize their growing economies. In addition some nations (i.e. Brazil, Indonesia) continue massive deforestation operations that are destroying our planets vital rainforests. These are major causes for concern which have resulted in a dramatic increase in the level of greenhouse gases and depletion of our ozone layer. Environmental scientist have put us on notice that if these levels are sustained or increased global warming and climate change will only worsen and begin to reek havoc on the ecosystem of our planet; worst case scenario these changes may even become irreversible in the not so distant future; recently it has now been speculated that the effects of climate change may displace 1 Billion people by 2050. The alarm bells are ringing now is the time for us to take serious measures to dramatically curb our current and future reliance on carbon based fuels for our energy needs. Our congressional leaders should be on the house floor debating these matters as much as they debate war funding, they need to be creating legislation that supports future policies that will lessen our carbon based emissions. Society as a whole needs to focus on conservation and developing new technology in order to suspend this impending global catastrophe.
As to the dangers nuclear power plants pose, we only need to look back upon Chernobyl (Russia Ukraine 1986) and 3-Mile Island (US Pennsylvania 1979), it has been well over 30 years since we have had a major disaster at one of our 104 reactors located at 66 nuclear plants. The waste and disposal of fissile material will always be a cause for concern, for the moment we have plans for storing this material at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, next generation nuclear plants may find ways to recycle the fissile material making it safer to store. Presently I see very little harm in living next to a nuclear plant most of them have been built in fairly isolated and remote locations and have excellent safety records. It can’t be much worse than living downwind from a coal, oil, or gas-fired plant. Nuclear plants have zero carbon emissions.
Then there is the prospect of nuclear fusion this is the energy that powers the sun, which currently being researched and development, if test proven successful it could supply us with an unlimited source of energy. It is important for us to begin educating more nuclear scientist and engineers in order to better harness these new technologies soon they might find the answers that will make future of nuclear energy more safe and reliable. What we need is the another Manhattan project but under a different guise and involving all industrialized nations who oppose further escalation of carbon emissions. Instead of our government focusing all these resources on this war on terror they equally be focusing allocating fund and programs that curb our dependency on foreign oil.
A revolutionary energy alternative is en-route. It uses a never before commercialized source of abundant, renewable, inexpensive energy. It will be able to power anything that uses electricity as it can replace batteries.
All future cars may become power plants that can sell up to 150 kW of power to the local utility when parked. No connection required. The car can provide 10 kW to your home - without wires.
See magneticpowerinc.com for more information. Also renewableenergyworld.com for articles.
Those with scientific training will doubt this is possible until independent laboratory confirmation. That is expected before the end of this summer.
Demonstration devices and toys are likely to be in mass production next year. Along with 1kW solid-state generators that can be linked together to power homes.
Instead of repeating the common anti-nuclear speaking points, check out the facts as determined by real scientists who publish their findings for peer-review vs. general statements without any backing.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Ma gazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf
The above research compares the amount of Green House Gases (CHG) generated for various means of electricity generation for their entire life-cycle on a per unit basis, i.e., how much GHG is produced per kilowatt-hour. You will find that nuclear power, because of its ability to produce such a very large amount of power from a relatively small amount of material, both fuel and facility-wise, is actually the cleanest means to produce electricity.
Mark
How much of your personal money are you investing in the Power Genie concept? I am not saying something revolutionary cannot happen, but I think I’ll keep my hands in my pockets at this time.
Barry
You are absolutely correct. However, most of us that support nuclear power do not pass it off as a “quick and easy answer” or preclude other options. What we ARE saying is that nuclear power offers the best option for GHG-free 24/7 baseload power needs. In addition, the U.S. has an excellent safety record – no deaths or injuries to any workers or members of the public due to radiation related incidences since the first power plant started up over 50 years ago.
You also said “The real problem with nuclear energy is that nobody knows what to do with the waste which will last longer than human history and for which the technological solution is far more elusive than carbon sequestration of coal fired plants.”
That is simply not true. If you care to, here are enough references to show you that this topic has been researched extensively and technical solutions are available, including recycling the used fuel. Recycling captures 90 to 95% of the used fuel which lowers costs and minimizes waste. So, you ask, why aren’t we doing these things. The answer is politics.
Note: In the spirit of full disclosure, NEI is an industry sponsored lobbying group, but they make nice pretty presentations with short answers for those not interested in digging so deeply. IAEA is the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. IAEA is sponsored by the United Nations and member countries. Their goals include oversight of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, including reactor operations, fuel recycling, and waste disposal. They also have done extensive research on the Chernobly event – you might be surprised at the latest facts on that, so I included one link for that, too. I have found IAEA’s data to be objective and peer-reviewed (that means outsiders review and challenge their findings before publication).
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/LTS-RW_web.pdf
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/newsletter.asp?id=126
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/M eetings/PDFplus/2007/Seminar_F or_Diplomats/Forsstroem_Presentation.ppt#27
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1467_web.pdf
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf
be doing OK. The stuff burns well,
but people keep saying it's toxic.
Or maybe it's because the Commie-Koreans
use it that we can't.