New energy policy for America.

[samclem]

Re: Geothermal. There was a cover story a month ago in Popular Science (or somesuch) on the potential for geothermal power in the US. There are a few locations where it makes sense and is becoming commercially viable. It's nice because it's available 24/7, so makes for a good source fr baseline demand. There are, however, large portions of the US where no hot spots are close enough to the surface.

OTOH, using the steady-state temps of the earth underneath homes/businesses, etc as a source for earth-coupled heatpumps is an idea that is very practical in most of the US. It's especially attractive if you live in a cold climate and don't have access to natural gas for heating.

In the more distant future when costs come down for direct conversion of heat energy to electricity (via reverse Peltier solid-state devices, etc) I imagine it might even be possible to generate energy from the difference in temp between underground earth temps everywhere and the surface temperature. That will be a long way off, as this low-grade heat difference (30-50 deg F) is just not practical to exploit with present technology (and might never be).

 

[Razor]

No one has mentioned geothermal for electric power generation. DH and I were in Mexico and learned that they have a geothermal plant that serves part of the US.

It seems to me that geothermal is the ultimate renewable energy source, not dependent on sunlight or wind.

The biggest limitations of using geothermal to generate electricity is related to geography and geology – there are relatively few places on earth that have magma close enough to the earth’s crust to create the conditions necessary for generating electricity in an economical way.

 

[Brat]

For those of us who live near the Cascade or Sierra Mountian ranges proximity to geothermal features isn't an issue.

 

[FinanceDude]

For those of us who live near the Cascade or Sierra Mountian ranges proximity to geothermal features isn't an issue.

 

[Brat]

Were I a member of the Warm Springs Tribe I would be exploring the option of a geothermal power generation facility.

 

[clifp]

The Big Island of Hawaii has had a geothermal plant operating for 25 years. Unfortunately, like some many alterantive energy options it isn't very cost effective, despite being located on an active volcano.

 

[Surfdaddy]

No one has mentioned geothermal for electric power generation. DH and I were in Mexico and learned that they have a geothermal plant that serves part of the US.

It seems to me that geothermal is the ultimate renewable energy source, not dependent on sunlight or wind.

It is my understanding based upon some geothermal work I did in the 1980's that geothermal is NOT renewable. Once the heated rock area is cooled the reheat times are in the centuries. (not to be construed as opposition to geothermal as a good interim idea)

 

[Razor]

The Big Island of Hawaii has had a geothermal plant operating for 25 years. Unfortunately, like some many alterantive energy options it isn't very cost effective, despite being located on an active volcano.

Man, if they can't produce geothermal energy cost effectively in Hawaii, it does have some major drawbacks.

 

[Wags]

What enegry policy?

Maybe what the new president should do come Jan 2009 is appoint the GREAT Willlie Nelson to the post of Energy Secretary and appoint Woody Harrison the Under Secretary for Energy. Then maybe HEMP can be used as an alternate source for enegry.

If nothing else at least the Dept of Energy will be ordering a lot of take out and they will save the Government $$$$ by eating their meals at their desks.

GOD BLESS US ALL

 

[bright eyed]

Build 3 Nuclear Power plants per state. It would revive the economy, it would put the arabs in Opec on notice that we here in the states will have as much electric power as we need. Let the Chinese buy the stinkin oil!

Heck the arabs were sided with the Nazis durig WWII

the country and people that helped americans the SERBS have been given the shaft by the americans now, and china gets most favored trade status, they are awful when it comes to human rights.

i don't think rhode island needs 3...

 

[Razor]

Nuclear energy is certainly not the miracle cure-all for our energy problems. Known uranium ore resources which can be mined at about current costs are estimated to be sufficient to produce fuel for about 85 years at current levels. If trhe number of nuclear plants is doubled then there is enough to last 40 years.

 

[samclem]

Not much is known about uranium reserves, as the amount of exploration has been far less than for oil, etc. Also, if the most easily-recovered uranium became more scarce and price increased, there is a lot more than can be economically recovered. Uranium is fairly common stuff--about as common as tin or zinc. Today, the fuel cost for electricity from nuclear plants amounts to 2 cents per kwh (about 1/2 the price of coal), so even if the price of uranium doubled it would still not be prohibitively expensive.

And, of course, if we decide to use breeder reactors, we'll have fuel for a very long time (millions of years).

Yes, I know breeder reactors have their own set of issues (particularly the proliferation potential of the increased storage and shipment of Pu), but these problems aren't technical ones.

The info above and more:
Freedom For Fission- finding the fuel

And this, from a more impartial site:
[SIZE=+1]"Uranium is an abundant natural resource that is found all over the world. At current rates of use, uranium resources could last more than 500 years. (A process called "breeding," which converts uranium into plutonium-an even better fuel--could extend uranium reserves for millions of years.)"
[/SIZE]Nuclear Energy

 

[imnxpat]

And, of course, if we decide to use breeder reactors, we'll have fuel for a very long time (millions of years).

Along with the waste it produces.

 

[scrinch]

Whatever happened to conservation? It may not take us all the way to energy independence, but it's a lot easier and cheaper than nuclear. It's a good place to start!

 

[chinaco]

Whatever happened to conservation? It may not take us all the way to energy independence, but it's a lot easier and cheaper than nuclear. It's a good place to start!

That will come. As prices continue to rise, demand will lower.

There will be a new round of pushing for more energy efficiency in a number of areas. And of course, this give businesses the opportunity to sell you the more energy efficient autos, durable goods and electronics. They are going to help you save money.

 

[Razor]

Not much is known about uranium reserves, as the amount of exploration has been far less than for oil, etc.

You are right about that. I have found numbers all over the board. Much more research is needed in nuclear energy.

 

[M Paquette]

Known uranium ore resources which can be mined at about current costs are estimated to be sufficient to produce fuel for about 85 years at current levels. If trhe number of nuclear plants is doubled then there is enough to last 40 years.

That's only if we insist on burying or otherwise hiding the 'spent' fuel element away after one use. The 'spent' elements are still around 92-95% unused fuel. It's just that the remaining fuel isn't quite able to sustain the fission reaction used to make heat, and so power, without being reprocessed.

If the fuel is reprocessed, without using breeder reactors or other advanced methods there is still enough in known reserves to last several hundred years. Applying more advanced reactor designs such as Thorium->Uranium-233 cycle reactors along with fuel recycling, the available fuel for fission power can readily last well over a thousand years.

 

[Walt34]

Whatever happened to conservation? It may not take us all the way to energy independence, but it's a lot easier and cheaper than nuclear. It's a good place to start!

WHAT! And live below our energy means? That's Un-American!