New energy policy for America.

[dumpster56]

Nuclear Power? Does anybody here remember Chernobyl? Or Three Mile Island? Furthermore, there is still no facility available for premanent disposal of radioactive waste.

Let's focus instead on conservation and alternate sources such as solar and wind power.

Wind solar yes will work BUT with the boom in population global warming if you believe it Nuke power will be needed for electricity to make the world go round and you better build desalinazation plants with electricity from the new nuke plants for WATER for the humans on the planet. If you think Bio fuels and the electric plants that are on the planet now will keep the planet humming along you are dreaming!

 

[lets-retire]

Wind solar yes will work BUT with the boom in population global warming if you believe it Nuke power will be needed for electricity to make the world go round and you better build desalinazation plants with electricity from the new nuke plants for WATER for the humans on the planet. If you think Bio fuels and the electric plants that are on the planet now will keep the planet humming along you are dreaming!

HOLY CRAP!!!! What day is it I agree with Newguy for once. I guess everyone CAN find something to agree on.

 

[Marquette]

Wind solar yes will work BUT with the boom in population global warming if you believe it Nuke power will be needed for electricity to make the world go round and you better build desalinazation plants with electricity from the new nuke plants for WATER for the humans on the planet. If you think Bio fuels and the electric plants that are on the planet now will keep the planet humming along you are dreaming!

After a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan and a pandemic for the rest of us, I think we'll be able to fit a few more people on this planet.

On another topic, imnxpat, you should check out the newer nuclear reactors, such as a pebble bed reactor.

 

[HFWR]

I'm all for conservation, but we can't get there from here...

No reactors in the modern world are of the Chernobyl design (or lack of design...), so red herring...

 

[samclem]

The proper role for government is to first determine if the "normal" market forces which drive energy source development and the use of energy in the US are somehow out of sync with our long-term national interests. It might be that market forces will work fine and that no government involvement s needed (e.g. if we determine that oil prices will ramp up at a rate that will allow energy companies to get replacements online soon enough, then there's no need for a government-sponsored crash program. Such a program might even be detrimental by discouraging private investment in these technologies, which would likely be a much more efficient way to develop these new technologies).

If there is a determination that market forces will NOT prove sufficient to provide the secure energy we need, then government has a legitimate role in artificially changing the risk/benefit ratios to favor the >>result we want. For example, if we decide that carbon emissions are a big deal, and that we have a national interest in reducing them (a big IF given the behavior of other countries), then the government could set in place artificial costs for the release of carbon. Or, we might decide, from a national security standpoint, that US national interests would be advanced significantly by diversify our transportation fuels away from petroleum. To achieve this, we could tax oil, thereby providing incentives for development of other transportation energy sources. The government should not be in the business of picking the preferred technology (plug-in hybrid vehicles, compressed-air vehicles, development of synthetic fuels, increased carpooling and bike use, improved mass transit, or some new technology we haven't thought of yet etc). If you increase the price of oil you start the growth of all of these approaches, each where they make the most sense.

Thus, only if necessary, the government should provide the artificial incentives/disincentives to align market forces with our national interests. The government should set the goal and put incentives in place, industry/technology/the market can best determine the "how." Mandating three nuclear reactors per state is a direct jump to dysfunctional micromanagement. That's how we got the highly damaging and expensive corn-based ethanol program.

But, we should go into this knowing that any government fiddling with incentives/disincentives will do two other things:
- Have unintended consequences (see "corn-based ethanol" for more info)
- Reduce our economic efficiency (at least in the short term), which will reduce our standard of living. Maybe it will be worth the cost--but there will be a cost.

 

[ladelfina]

There was just something in the Economist about ethanol and the massive water requirements for processing.
Ethanol and water | Don't mix | Economist.com

OFFICIALS in Tampa, Florida, got a surprise recently when a local firm building the state's first ethanol-production factory put in a request for 400,000 gallons (1.5m litres) a day of city water. The request by US Envirofuels would make the facility one of the city's top ten water consumers overnight, and the company plans to double its size. Florida is suffering from a prolonged drought. Rivers and lakes are at record lows and residents wonder where the extra water will come from.
...
The number of ethanol factories has almost tripled in the past eight years from 50 to about 140. A further 60 or so are under construction. In 2007 President George Bush signed legislation requiring a fivefold increase in biofuels production, to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
...
A typical ethanol factory producing 50m gallons of biofuels a year needs about 500 gallons of water a minute.

 

[Average Joe]

Arab /= Muslim /= OPEC

That equation hides more than it reveals. There is an association between being Arab and being Muslim. And there is a lesser but not insignificant association between Islamic states and oil exports.

OPEC members:
7 of the 13 are Arab states (Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, KSA, and UAE).
10 of the 13 are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, KSA, UAE, Indonesia, Iran, and Nigeria).
3 of the 13 are non-Arab and non-Muslim states: Angola, Venezuela, and Ecuador

Check DOE oil export data at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm (click on the “exports” tab in the table on the right of that page).
Among the top 15 oil exporters on the DOE table, 6 are Arab states and 9 are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. So among the top exporters, OIC member states outnumber non-Islamic states 9 to 6 - and the 9 export 150% of what the 6 do. (add the data in top 15 exporter table – the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exported 23,988,000 barrels per day and non OIC states exported 15,616,000 barrels per day.) Maybe this contributes to the popularity of the not necessarily ignorant notion that Islamic states sell a lot of oil by comparison to non-Islamic states.

Not all Muslims are Arab? True, most Muslims are not Arabs.

Not all Arabs are Muslim? Yes, but exceptions don't disprove trends. Arab states are predominantly Muslim, dominated by Muslims (to understate the case), and are all member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference(see http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/member_states.asp ). Their governments and the vast majority of their people will tell us what we can already see; Arab states are Muslim states. In the past century a huge proportion of Arab immigrants to the US were Christians. But this does not reflect non-Muslim influence in Arab states; on the contrary, it reflects the continued shrinking of non-Muslim minority populations. Some members of those minority populations will tell you that they are not actually Arabs anyway. Most Christian minorities in the region, while they will speak Arabic, also have another language - Asyrian, Chaldean, Greek, and the like, depending on the region. Groups of Non-Muslim Arabs are remnants of what the region was before Islam spread.

Look at the people who we call Arabs and you’ll see that “Arab,” as we use the word, is not a race. Arguably there is an Arab race centered around the Peninsula. But line up an average sample (if you can decide which features to call average in some of these places) of Arabs from the Maghreb, Egypt, the Levant, and the ArabPeninsula and you’ll easily see that they are different races, or mixes of races. Look within those regions and you find racial variety within them as well.

 

[jazz4cash]

The proper role for government is to first determine if the "normal" market forces which drive energy source development and the use of energy in the US are somehow out of sync with our long-term national interests. It might be that market forces will work fine and that no government involvement s needed (e.g. if we determine that oil prices will ramp up at a rate that will allow energy companies to get replacements online soon enough, then there's no need for a government-sponsored crash program.
.

I hearya, but I just think we are well beyond the point of waiting for market forces to advance this issue. Its been 35 yrs since the oil embargo, and we are absolutely no better off in action or attitude. My kid's eyes glaze over when I mention waiting in line for gas, so they have no tangible connection. We have a collection of groups lobbying for thier favorite solution to the detriment of all others. It becomes a tug of war and more resources wasted as various immature technologies compete for capitol. Gov't can remove some risk so industry is willing to invest more in research and sponser more engineering grads. Our most precious resource is time and we've squandered too much already. Lets GO!

 

[prgsdw]

I'm always amazed by the idea, almost religious belief, that the market can take care of these issues 100% on it's own so sit back and watch innovation happen - no offense to the poster...It's entirely possible that, in this case, with such a complex problem, that events may move too quickly and cause a painful collapse in a period of time folks are not expecting possible - and too quick for the market to react to.

For example, would it be a bad thing for the US government to invest in technology to unlock the 2.6 trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the US - and then give away the technology to the business world? Where is the harm in that? Of course an individual company can't license the patent on the process or the technology - but it's a matter of national defense - er potentially survival, to find a reasonable and orderly way through this energy morass.

ARPANET is basis for the technology that we are using today to communicate and that has revolutionized the world (ARPANET - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I fail to see how this has hindered innovation and creativity in the networking and communications spaces of the market today.

In my mind a market has to exist - or have a very good likelihood of existing soon - before any serious private money is spent on the subject. As was mentioned earlier - most projects that were stimulated by the shocks 35 years ago were scraped over 20 years ago...while it is possible the market will "save us" - why put all the eggs in one basket? Like fighting with an arm tied behind your back in my mind.

 

[AltaRed]

Nuclear Power? Does anybody here remember Chernobyl? Or Three Mile Island? Furthermore, there is still no facility available for premanent disposal of radioactive waste.

Let's focus instead on conservation and alternate sources such as solar and wind power.

Trouble is wind and solar power are not available 24/7 and almost need, MW per MW, equivalent standby generation. Are you willing to shut your electricity off to your house when the sun goes down? Wind and solar power will always be on the fringe for perhaps no more than 10-15% of overall power demand. Proponents have failed to do their math.

Nuclear is the only truly available baseload option to replace hydrocarbons.

 

[Marquette]

Trouble is wind and solar power are not available 24/7 and almost need, MW per MW, equivalent standby generation. Are you willing to shut your electricity off to your house when the sun goes down? Wind and solar power will always be on the fringe for perhaps no more than 10-15% of overall power demand. Proponents have failed to do their math.

Nuclear is the only truly available baseload option to replace hydrocarbons.

I don't expect a single solution to our energy needs, and I'm all for building more nuclear plants. However, I'd encourage a quick read of SciAm's article on a proposed solar plan for the US.

It's available online here: A Solar Grand Plan: Scientific American

 

[imnxpat]

I'm all for conservation, but we can't get there from here...

No reactors in the modern world are of the Chernobyl design (or lack of design...), so red herring...

Don't kid yourself, HFWR. Nuclear technology as a whole is still not that advanced. Let's say for the sake of argument that the design of present day reactors is foolproof. But what about plants that were built before these supposed improvements were developed? How safe are they? And even if there are ways to regulate these reactors in the U.S., don't tell me that ALL other countries are particular in regulating their nuclear plants, especially third world countries. Do you honestly believe that when nuclear accidents occur, resulting radioactive contamination respects national borders?

And what about the matter of transporting and disposing nuclear wastes, which is still a huge problem. The Yucca Mountain project, for example, is years behind schedule. Anyway once it's finished, if it ever is completed, how close would YOU be willing to live to such a site?

The post by Insanity is right on. We need to start thinking outside the box, to stop looking for ways to improve old energy sources, and instead invest our thinking and resources in new energy technologies.

And by the way, I stand by my position on the importance of conservation. Americans are incredibly wasteful when it comes to consumption of energy, including a national policy against improving milage standards. Gas guzzling vans, and SUV's, and pick-up trucks still rule the road.

 

[chinaco]

For electrical power generation, there are many proven options... solar, wind, geothermal, coal, hydro and yes in certain areas of the country nuclear.

It would be fairly easy to retrofit existing oil fired and natural gas plants to coal. The technology exists to clean up emissions.

It is just a matter of the US government taking action.

The same goes for fuel for automobiles.

Enough with the studies... we have known technology to begin addressing the problem. The government needs to take action.

To the politicians -- Energy is now becoming an inflation threat. It's the economy stupid!

 

[lets-retire]

Trouble is wind and solar power are not available 24/7 and almost need, MW per MW, equivalent standby generation. Are you willing to shut your electricity off to your house when the sun goes down? Wind and solar power will always be on the fringe for perhaps no more than 10-15% of overall power demand. Proponents have failed to do their math.

Nuclear is the only truly available baseload option to replace hydrocarbons.

I agree with what you are saying to a point. Since most electric is consumed during the day wouldn't solar power, if nothing else, lower our dependence on oil as a means to generate electricity. Use a combination of solar and wind during times when they are most effective and have traditional generation means to handle the overload and when the newer technology is not effective, such as at night.

It seems many people believe there will be a combination of technologies replacing our electrical generation system. Why can't it start now?

 

[ladelfina]

Why can't it start now?

The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be sun!

Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the cobwebs,
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!

When I'm stuck a day
That's gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And Grin,
And Say,
Oh!

The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
A way!

Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You're always
A dayyyyyy
Aaaaaaaaaa wayyyyyyyyy!

 

[Independent]

I agree with SamClem's post #55, which means that I think I disagree with most other posts on this thread.

Maybe I'm reading them incorrectly, but the general impression I get is that many posters believe that we can continue to use just as much energy as we do today, at the same cost, if only the gov't picks the "right" technology to replace oil.

I think that anything that replaces oil is going to be more expensive for a long time.
I don't think that the gov't has a good track record of picking winners. In fact, because of the way Washington works, I can confidently predict that it won't pick winners in the future.

However, I also think that we do need to use a lot less oil.
The market has failed on this one because it doesn't factor in the national security costs of the US creating 25% of the world's demand for oil.

Our oil policy decision is pretty obvious - we tax crude oil and rebate the tax.
For example, we could have a tax of $2 per gallon on crude oil, and get a credit on our FIT of $2,000 per person.

The gov't should spend a little money on some basic research and enforce reasonable pollution laws. But no subsidies for any new technology. If oil is expensive enough, we'll have capital crawling out of the woodwork financing all sorts of new ideas. The best will grow and make the investors rich. The others will shrivel up and leave the investors with nothing. That's more efficient than having the lobbyists and Congress make the decisions. If you think nuclear or solar or wind is a great idea, you'll have plenty of opportunities to help the country and yourself by investing.

But, there's no free lunch. All of these technologies will be more expensive than oil for a long time. We're going to end up using less energy, and spending more per unit, than we do today. We each get to make our own decisions about whether that means living closer to work, driving a smaller vehicle, or whatever. But, we'll make some changes that we'd rather not make. The reason most politicians won't support a crude oil tax is because the word "tax" reminds the voters that this is going to cost them something, and voters (that's us) want to live in a no-cost world.

I thnk it would be worth it. I agree that merely proposing the tax would lower the price of oil. Actually passing it would have a bigger effect. We'd be less dependent on something we can't control, and the various dysfuntional "governments" that control oil supply will have less revenue. When I look at how much those dysfunctional governments hav cost us and will cost us, I see that cutting our oil use is a big net gain.

 

[unclemick]

Hmmm - you know this thread reminds me of how pissed Moby Dick got at Georgory Peck back in the time before petroleum oil.

And that's no bacon joke.

Heh heh heh - I remember 1974 Huntsville getting the tour of alt. energy demo's with the NASA engineer I was working with on Shuttle.

Solar powered air conditioner was a hoot!

 

[dumpster56]

I agree with SamClem's post #55, which means that I think I disagree with most other posts on this thread.

Maybe I'm reading them incorrectly, but the general impression I get is that many posters believe that we can continue to use just as much energy as we do today, at the same cost, if only the gov't picks the "right" technology to replace oil.

I think that anything that replaces oil is going to be more expensive for a long time.
I don't think that the gov't has a good track record of picking winners. In fact, because of the way Washington works, I can confidently predict that it won't pick winners in the future.

However, I also think that we do need to use a lot less oil.
The market has failed on this one because it doesn't factor in the national security costs of the US creating 25% of the world's demand for oil.

Our oil policy decision is pretty obvious - we tax crude oil and rebate the tax.
For example, we could have a tax of $2 per gallon on crude oil, and get a credit on our FIT of $2,000 per person.

The gov't should spend a little money on some basic research and enforce reasonable pollution laws. But no subsidies for any new technology. If oil is expensive enough, we'll have capital crawling out of the woodwork financing all sorts of new ideas. The best will grow and make the investors rich. The others will shrivel up and leave the investors with nothing. That's more efficient than having the lobbyists and Congress make the decisions. If you think nuclear or solar or wind is a great idea, you'll have plenty of opportunities to help the country and yourself by investing.

But, there's no free lunch. All of these technologies will be more expensive than oil for a long time. We're going to end up using less energy, and spending more per unit, than we do today. We each get to make our own decisions about whether that means living closer to work, driving a smaller vehicle, or whatever. But, we'll make some changes that we'd rather not make. The reason most politicians won't support a crude oil tax is because the word "tax" reminds the voters that this is going to cost them something, and voters (that's us) want to live in a no-cost world.

I thnk it would be worth it. I agree that merely proposing the tax would lower the price of oil. Actually passing it would have a bigger effect. We'd be less dependent on something we can't control, and the various dysfuntional "governments" that control oil supply will have less revenue. When I look at how much those dysfunctional governments hav cost us and will cost us, I see that cutting our oil use is a big net gain.

Without ELECTRICITY nothing will work. We need a reliable source of cheap electricity to make sure the lights stay on water treatment plants work at all times sewer treatment plants work at all times. That is an essential for life. Nuclear power is the only thing that can do that now. We can build as many reactors as needed. Heck it makes no sense that when it gets HOT IN THE SUMMER in America the greatest country on earth as most here would say we cannot keep the lights on!!! So gobmint should make sure the electrical grid is so hardened and full of Kilowatts that we never have to worry about blackouts or brownouts when it gets too hot or too cold. Right now when utilities have to buy electricity on the open market on super hot days the cost is well absurd!Sometime 25X the cost when it is not an emergency. That is bull stones.

I just love it when you guys go and start the private industry will come out of the woodwork when oil gets too high yadayadayada. You all say govmint should not do anything. well then why should the military which is run by the govmint be doing all the things it is doing now?? Oh its in our national interest you will say. Fine so is ELECTRICITY!

Where is the pentagon the military STOCK SYMBOL on the Stock Exchange??

 

[Independent]

You seem to be responding to me, but we don't seem to be communicating.

I certainly think the gov't should "do something" that it should have done 30 years ago. It should put a tax on crude oil. There are sound reasons why the market hasn't fully priced the cost of crude, and the gov't should correct that.

However, if we did that, the gov't wouldn't need to do much else about oil.

Regarding electricity, I don't see as much of a problem. We have huge coal resources. If the price goes up because coal is harder to get, then we'll get more efficient and find other sources (maybe nuclear). If your concern is CO2, than the economics are the same as oil. The only thing the gov't needs to do is a carbon tax, and maybe a little basic research. The market will find the right mix of conservation, pricing, nuclear, solar, or whatever.

 

[Canadian FIRE]

I think Independent is on to something here. You all seem to be blindingly ignoring the fact you have the highest consumption of oil per capita in the world. So if you tax the crap out of oil, you will influence people's consumption. Then you pour the tax dollars into research and tax breaks so people who are not driving SUV's will walk away without paying any extra money overall (ie: extra gas cost = tax break if you have lower consumption than average).

If you really want energy independence you have to stop wasting it.

By the way, it's not to say the average Canadian is much better, but at least BC's new carbon tax seems to be directing people to get better.

 

[Marquette]

I think Independent is on to something here. You all seem to be blindingly ignoring the fact you have the highest consumption of oil per capita in the world.

Well, several people on this thread, myself included, have said in other threads that we need to tax the hell out of gas. Going further towards the source and taxing the oil may make more sense though.

 

[chinaco]

Wind Power generation.

Bloomberg.com: Exclusive

Solar Thermal

Solar thermal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jazz4cash]

I don't expect a single solution to our energy needs, and I'm all for building more nuclear plants. However, I'd encourage a quick read of SciAm's article on a proposed solar plan for the US.

It's available online here: A Solar Grand Plan: Scientific American

This is a great piece. It addresses several issues that are being debated here. Thanks for posting.

 

[ERD50]

Don't kid yourself, HFWR. Nuclear technology as a whole is still not that advanced. ... How safe are they?

Just google up safety statistics for all types of energy. I think you will find that nuclear is documented to be the safest on a death/injury per MW produced. How many coal miners die each year around the world?

And what about the matter of transporting and disposing nuclear wastes, which is still a huge problem. The Yucca Mountain project, for example, is years behind schedule.

Coal plants are allowed to spew their waste (including mercury) into our atmosphere. Hold coal to the same standard, and you would need to shut down every coal plant.

Add me to the 'tax gas' posters as the way to push conservation. Then let the free market devise the alternatives.

-ERD50

 

[Texarkandy]

Add me to the 'tax gas' posters as the way to push conservation.

IMO taxes should serve just the simple constitutional purpose of funding the government - not punishing and rewarding the social/economic behavior of the people.