mccracken
VIP Member
Join Date: 1/16/2004
Posts: 262
Location: USA
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2008 12:21:57 PM
|
|
|
Why doesn't anyone like nuclear power? With oil drying up and costing a bundle, why does no one like the idea of a clean, efficient energy source?
This isn't necessarily an economic topic, but it's one of the major issues facing this country. People would rather use "clean" energies like ethanol or electric cars--that rely heavily on oil to run the tractors to farm the corn to make the ehtanol or coal to run the power generating facilities that charge the cars--than talk about a clean and efficient energy source.
Check it out.. check it out... and then pick it out....... Then show me my dinero!!!
|
|
grimmeissen
Administrator
Join Date: 1/14/2004
Posts: 1217
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2008 1:20:18 PM
|
|
|
I actually think this is a huge economic topic. Nuclear energy could be a major solution to the clean energy problem, but ever since Three Mile Island the government hasn't chartered a single new one. There has been a big stigma placed on them, despite the fact that Europe is nearly all nuclear and have had no issues.
Nuclear energy is very clean compared to burning coal, so it solves some of the green issues (although it does have waste to deal with). It's also a very reliable source of huge quantities of power. I see electrical energy as one way to move away from oil. The only way to have efficient hybrids or all-electric vehicles is to have an extremely clean and reliable electric system.
Unfortunately, our government is too happy giving subsidies to farmers to make ethanol from corn that takes more energy to make than it actually provides. As long as tax breaks continue to be given to ethanol, coal, and oil companies, there isn't much hope for the more promising, greener technologies like nuclear and wind power.
|
|
mccracken
VIP Member
Join Date: 1/16/2004
Posts: 262
Location: USA
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2008 9:51:44 PM
|
|
|
As long as it's a band-aid our government loves it.
As long as it distract constituitents from what's actually going on it's a good thing.
The waste can be easliy gotten rid of--considering we put newspapers, bannana peels, and tampons in cement blocks--I have a hard time believing nucleur waste, dealt with in the same fashion, could be such a huge problem.
As long as people aren't overly stupid it's the best way to power the future.
Check it out.. check it out... and then pick it out....... Then show me my dinero!!!
|
|
grimmeissen
Administrator
Join Date: 1/14/2004
Posts: 1217
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2008 9:56:52 PM
|
|
|
I think any upgrades to the power system are positive ones. Cars that derrive most of their power from electricity seems to be the most promising invention so far for getting away from oil completely.
Even bringing new coal plants online isn't such a bad thing, as we have most of the world's coal supply. But I think nuclear is the best idea for clean, long-term electricity.
Wind power is by far my favorite of the alternate energies. It would be perfect for about 10-15% of the grid.
|
|
SeekerDarksteel
Corporal Sucka
Join Date: 10/11/2005
Posts: 25
Location: Champaign-Urbana
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2008 1:38:37 AM
|
|
|
The one problem with wind power: if you take enough energy out of the atmosphere you will end up affecting the climate. Even if all that energy is put back into the atmosphere via heat, it is still changing the dynamics of the atmosphere. Now, can we even begin to approach the levels where that's possible given current technology? I don't know. But I bet a hundred years ago no one would ever think we could possibly use all the oil on the planet.
Solar has the opposite problem. It's generating electricity with solar energy that would have otherwise been reflected out of the atmosphere. So when that electricity is eventually used for something which generates heat, there's a net heating effect on the planet.
Nuclear unfortunately has the same problem too. Energy that was stored as nuclear bonds instead is released as heat and electricity (which in turn contributes heat when it is used).
Nuclear is probably best even in the long run, but if our energy usage keeps increasing exponentially we're going to end up facing a problem where even though greenhouse gases aren't contributing to climate change, we're still going to be putting more energy into the atmosphere than it would be getting without human intervention.
Of course I'm probably looking well off into the future too. But it will become an issue eventually.
|
|
grimmeissen
Administrator
Join Date: 1/14/2004
Posts: 1217
|
|
|
Posted: 5/6/2008 10:24:17 AM
|
|
|
Those are some valid concerns, but I highly doubt wind gets to the level where that would even be a remote issue. At the very most I only expect wind to provide 10-20% of the grid power at current levels.
I think it is going to take combinations of various energy sources to replace our demands for coal and oil rather than one be-all-end-all solution. It's also going to take a continued effort at better energy efficiency. I think the latter will probably have to happen quicker, as it's much easier to better use the energy you have than to find new ways to make it.
|
|
Bp_968
Private Noob
Join Date: 5/7/2008
Posts: 1
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2008 9:27:39 PM
|
|
|
I like the concept of electric cars so I did a calculation based on our most efficient mass produced electric hybrid car, the Prius. The prius, if converted to an EV will "burn" 254 watts per mile at 65mph. So for a 320 mile range (typical of a gas powered car) you would need 80KW of energy stored onboard the car. Sadly, right now the storage technology to store that much power onboard a car is extremely expensive *or* extremely heavy (it would require at least 60 115AH 12v deep cycle batteries and those weight some 58lbs each) and lithium batteries still cost far more then is feasible for a "tank" that big
But thats not even half of it. Generating 80KW of power would take a 20 panel (200w per panel) solar array 20 hours or 4 days of max output in the ohio area (if your not using it for anything else) so for the average driver they would need another 16,000$ in solar panels on their roof *just for the car*. Heck, just plugging it into the wall and charging it on a 120v outlet would require 53 hours! even with a 25amp, 240v circuit you need 13 hours to charge a 80KW pack at 100% efficiency (which it wouldn't charge at).
Now imagine a electric 3-4 ton SUV and the power pack it would need!
Speaking of huge heavy vehicles, here is an interesting article on how 6000lbs trucks/suvs (a huge number of them) are all banned on thousands of miles of california roads, but the ordinances are being ignored by the authorities because it would make to big a stink.
http://www.slate.com/id/2104755/
Another interesting thing the article reminded me of I discovered last year is that a business can write off the entire cost of a vehicle in one lump sum *if* its classified as "heavy". So I actually get penalized for buying and using a smaller more fuel efficient vehicle for my business!
|
|