Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

The Energy Challenge of Our Lifetime

By Michael T. Klare, Tomdispatch.com. Posted November 10, 2008.


Of all the challenges facing President Obama, none is likely to prove as daunting, or important to the future of this nation, as that of energy.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Of all the challenges facing President Barack Obama next January, none is likely to prove as daunting, or important to the future of this nation, as that of energy. After all, energy policy -- so totally mishandled by the outgoing Bush-Cheney administration -- figures in each of the other major challenges facing the new president, including the economy, the environment, foreign policy, and our Middle Eastern wars. Most of all, it will prove a monumental challenge because the United States faces an energy crisis of unprecedented magnitude that is getting worse by the day.

The U.S. needs energy -- lots of it. Day in and day out, this country, with only 5% of the world's population, consumes one quarter of the world's total energy supply. About 40% of our energy comes from oil: some 20 million barrels, or 840 million gallons a day. Another 23% comes from coal, and a like percentage from natural gas. Providing all this energy to American consumers and businesses, even in an economic downturn, remains a Herculean task, and will only grow more so in the years ahead. Addressing the environmental consequences of consuming fossil fuels at such levels, all emitting climate-altering greenhouse gases, only makes this equation more intimidating.

As President Obama faces our energy problem, he will have to address three overarching challenges:

1. The United States relies excessively on oil to supply its energy needs at a time when the future availability of petroleum is increasingly in question.

2. Our most abundant domestic source of fuel, coal, is the greatest emitter of greenhouse gases when consumed in the current manner.

3. No other source of energy, including natural gas, nuclear power, biofuels, wind power, and solar power is currently capable of supplanting our oil and coal consumption, even if a decision is made to reduce their importance in our energy mix.

This, then, is the essence of Obama's energy dilemma. Let's take a closer look at each of its key components.

Excessive Reliance on Oil

No other major power relies on getting so much of its energy from oil. Making that 40% figure especially daunting is this: the world supply of oil is about to contract. The competition for remaining supplies will then intensify, while most of what remains is located in inherently unstable regions, threatening to lead the U.S. into unceasing oil wars.

Just how much of the world's untapped oil supply remains to be exploited, and how quickly we will reach a peak of sustainable daily world oil output, are matters of some contention, but recently the scope of debate on this question has narrowed appreciably.

Most energy experts now believe that we have consumed approximately half of the planet's original petroleum inheritance and are very close to a peak in production. No one knows whether it will arrive in 2010, 2012, 2015, or beyond, but it is certainly near. In addition, most energy professionals now believe that global oil output will peak at far lower levels than only recently imagined -- perhaps 90-95 million barrels per day, not the 115-125 million barrels once projected by the U.S. Department of Energy. (Here I'm speaking only of conventional, liquid petroleum; there are some "unconventional" sources of oil -- Canadian tar sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy crude, and the like -- that may boost these numbers by a few millions of barrels per day, without altering the global energy equation significantly.)

What underlies these more pessimistic assumptions? To begin with, the depletion rate of existing fields is accelerating. Most of the giant fields on which the world now relies for the bulk of its oil supplies were discovered 30 to 60 years ago and are now reaching the end of their productive life cycles.

It used to be thought that the depletion rate of these fields was about 4% to 5% a year, but in a study to be released November 12, the International Energy Agency (IEA), an affiliate of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the club of wealthy industrialized nations), is expected to report that the decline rate is closer to 9%, an astonishingly high figure. At this rate of decline, the world's major fields will be depleted of their remaining supplies of oil relatively quickly, leaving us dependent on a constellation of smaller, less productive fields, often located in difficult to reach or unstable areas, as well as whatever new deposits the oil industry is able to locate and develop.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: energy, barack obama

Michael T. Klare is professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy (Metropolitan Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wind farms and a smart grid, or tar sands oil and more war in Iraq? Hmmm...
Posted by: gunboat diplomat on Nov 10, 2008 12:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Under business as usual, we'll stay in Iraq until the oil contracts are secured by the international oil corporatiions. We'll also start increasing imports of heavy crude from Canadian tar sands.

Take Iraq: "LONDON, Nov 7 (Reuters) - Oil major Royal Dutch Shell Plc said its planned gas venture with Iraq's state oil company will have a monopoly on collecting and marketing gas extracted as a by-product of oil production."

Shell has another multibillion bet in the Canadian tar sands, along with other companies like BP and Exxon and Conoco, who operate in consortiums with pipeline and engineering firms (Tanscanada, Enbridge, MidAmerican, as well as Bechtel and Halliburton-KBR). This is not as militarily destabilizing as the Iraq occupation has been, but the project will increase atmospheric CO2, flood the region with toxic byproducts, and lead to more climate destabilization.

However, under NAFTA rules, environmental and ecological issues are usually decided in secret panels. There have been some recent victories over NAFTA, however:

Congress upholds ban on tar sands oil, Sep 26 2008

Still, the SPP agreement calls for a five-fold increase in tar sand oil production in Alberta, to be fueled with natural gas delivered from Alaska and the Mackenzie region. It is still possible to end the idiotic tar sands projects before they do any more damage: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44354

The situation in Iraq, with the oil and gas leases going to Shell, BP, Chevron, Exxon, etc., along with the continuing presence of U.S. troops, the continued ban on oil workers unions - that's a recipe for more violence.

If Obama is willing to end tar sands oil imports and get the U.S. out of Iraq, that will be a lot. However, he will have to balance that with an equally impressive renewable energy and clean technology plan. The wind farms and the smart grid (the Pickens and Gore proposals, more or less) are two he could focus on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Portugal
Posted by: Von on Nov 10, 2008 1:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read a piece a while back on how Portugal has put a plan into effect to diminish its reliance on oil. A massive network of wind turbines.

Also, the Chinese people have been working very closely with the people of India in constructing platforms to capture the wind.

Nice article too...forward & honest writing on the 'oil wars'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Portugal Posted by: richholland
Abu Dhabi focuses on future without oil
Posted by: outlook on Nov 10, 2008 2:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based in Washington D.C., the Worldwatch Institute has, since 1974, been working to raise awareness of resource degredation and climate change; a vast think-tank of knowledge and resources, on the very door step of the White House, for the last thirty four years!

Meanwhile. oil-rich Abu Dhabi, awash with United States revenue, is deep into preparing for a future without oil. It is likely to become one of the planet's leading pioneers in a carbon-free future. They are in the process of building Masdur City; a carbon-free prototype for the future. For further information look up Masdur Global Initiative, Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company and Masdur City. They know how to spend U.S. dollars, how to look ahead, and to create 'Change we can believe in'!

The Obama administation has all the knowledge and know-how in its own backyard; the Worldwatch Institute, Al Gore, Van Jones and Vinod Khosla in Silican Valley, to name a few. If it doesn't avail itself of these pioneers, the future will be tragic, and the administration a hollow joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is This Guy Telling The Truth????
Posted by: opmoc on Nov 10, 2008 2:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Energy Non-Crisis - Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use."

http://video.google.com/
videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

linked video

Now its entirely possible that this guy is a nut, but its also entirely possible that he is telling the truth.

You have of course been indoctrinated, to believe that oil is a fossil fuel and will run out, and that CO2 causes Global Warming - and that oil is nasty stuff and that Alaska is nice and white and should be left alone.

But if oil is not a fossil fuel - but is formed deep within the earth - and is of unlimited supply - and CO2 does not cause Global Warming...

Why then was Iraq invaded - and Iran is now being threatened?

Maybe its more to do with oil being sold in US Dollars?

To get to the real truth is far from easy because people with vast amounts of money and very powerful political agendas, tell lies and corrupt science in order to progress their political agenda and turn it into Government Policy.

In many such cases their political agenda is neither good for human beings, the environment nor any life forms on the planet.

If we continue down our current path of closing down conventional and nuclear power stations and replace them with Solar and Wind, then we will destroy human civilisation and directly cause the death of Billions of people.

To prove this read "The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won't Run The World" By Howard C Hayden

This isn't political dogma - but physics and maths. You may not believe in or understand physics and maths - but that is your problem.

Dr. Howard Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Univ. of Conn - a short video

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1889

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The short answer is "No" Posted by: HeroesAll
Energy Scam.
Posted by: Nodarse on Nov 10, 2008 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those of you who don’t know how a Taser works:

A Taser takes the charge in a 9-volt battery and converts it (with circuitry) into 20,000 to 150,000 VOLTS! The average U.S. household uses about 25kw per day.

Question: Why can't someone connect this amplifying circuitry to a Solar Panel?

Answer: The patent holder of this technology (i.e. Energy Companies) don’t want us to have cheap electricity.

The solution to our energy problems have been around for over 100 years. The answers are collecting dust in Corporate Vaults and people tinkering in their garages.

Why do you think we're not allowed to benefit from it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Energy Scam. Posted by: opmoc
» RE: nergy Scam. Posted by: Nodarse
» RE: nergy Scam. Posted by: opmoc
» RE: nergy Scam. Posted by: Nodarse
» RE: nergy Scam. Posted by: opmoc
» RE: nergy Scam. Posted by: Nodarse
» RE: nergy Scam. Posted by: opmoc
» RE: nergy Scam. Posted by: Halfmastjack
» Thanks for doing this Posted by: tommy_slothrop
ITER & the Nuclear Fusion Reactor
Posted by: hadashito on Nov 10, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Professor Klare's commentary is certainly well taken and deserves wide attention, he omits what is perhaps the most promising, if not yet entirely developed, energy source for the future (and now, it seems, perhaps the NEAR future). The harnessing of thermonuclear fusion, after decades regarded as an expensive laboratory curiosity or a pipe dream, is now approaching reality.
In contrast to nuclear fission of the U235 isotope or of plutonium, nuclear FUSION of tiny amounts of hydrogen isotopes has now reached the stage at which the tightly controlled fusion process may well produce reliable, relatively inexpensive, and prodigious amounts of energy for conversion to electricity while minimizing the hazards of air or water pollution, carbon dioxide effluence, long half-life radioactive wastes (and only relatively small amounts at that), and no chance of any sort of "melt down".
Why thermonuclear fusion reactors are rarely mentioned in discussions, such as Professor Klare's, is difficiulty to comprehend. The development of such reactors is nearing the stage at which success is likely to be achieved and the promise of the solution to relatively inexpensive and abundant energy is at least as close to being a reality as an imaginary "clean" coal source, or any of the other "alternate" fuels in the amounts of energy required for the future when petroleum fuel sources will have been depleted.
Perhaps Professor might include in his presentations thermonuclear fusion as a relatively near future source of readily available energy if he were to Google "ITER" (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), the site for which is soon to be constructed in the south of France (in Provence, to be constructed beginning in 2009 at Cadarache). The USA is deeply involved along with several other countries, including Russia. Other related developments are well into advanced stages, as well, right here in the USA including those at the Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico (Google "Z Machine Facility").
These developments are hardly a secret Manhattan Project; they have been going on for decades. Why these are so rarely mentioned is very odd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not mentioned because not proven Posted by: greenknight
Peak Oil Associates International
Posted by: cjwirth on Nov 10, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to most independent scientific studies, global oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 9%.

No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always exceed production levels; thus oil depletion will continue steadily until all recoverable oil is extracted.

Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.

We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.

This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html

I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207. http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Until America realizes that oil is being priced at TOO LOW TO BE TRUE OBSCENE PRICES,
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 10, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
getting America to back off of its addiction to foreign oil is like trying teach a pig to sing.

And to those so-called "environmentalists" out there, when will you start pushing for an infrastructure for bikers so that they can be free to ride their bikes to work and not be forced to get stuck in traffic? When will you improve your efforts to make public transportation truly affordable and convenient? I might add that in my area there are still people who have a problem with guys wearing skin tight clothing making it look like they're trying to overtake women when in fact bikers, men and women, wear body tights to make through the good damn weather and cut down their fatigue as they're riding their bikes. Far less oil is used to produce these things than for gas guzzlers !

And when the fuck will America grow the fuck up and stop laughing at and persecuting those of us who are frugal, conserving, willing to experiment with fuel efficient and alternative sources of energy that are renewable without forcing us to pay more?

And another thing. Nowadays at work, almost nobody brings their lunches to work but will drive as much as 10 miles down to their crummy restaurants shitting themselves with over-processed food which consumes 10x as much oil to produce what with all those chemicals compared to a true hardworker who takes less than half an hour to cook up their favorite lunch !

Until the electorate wakes the FUCK up and realized that our so-called "capitalism" is not regulated but is RIGGED RIGGED RIGGED, America will continue to LOSE LOSE LOSE !

Sorry to sound like a mad man but

I NOW CALL UPON THE LORD TO RAISE THOSE GAS PRICES BACK UP AND FORCE THE ELECTORATE TO LEARN THE HARD WAY IN HELL !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No doubt
Posted by: RedFoxOne on Nov 10, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No doubt about it, we are an oil dependent nation. I think most people know we use non-renewable resources however feel, they wont run out in THEIR lifetime so who cares! Pretty sad isnt it.

Jess
Is your ISP watching you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Room temperature superconductors are required for wind and solar power to work.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wind energy requires that Direct Current [DC] be transmitted over enormous
distances [more than one continent] to provide continuous power because wind
varies from minute to minute. Direct current is required because the voltage and
frequency of AC would change minute by minute with wind speed. AC lines
longer than 1500 miles are antennas radiating the power out into space. Making
AC lines NOT radiate is a very expensive project, too expensive to be feasable.
Long distance DC transmission requires superconducting cable. DC just doesn't
go far otherwise. High voltage DC requires "DC transformers" which don't exist
as such. DC transformation requires the use of intrinsically low voltage
semiconductor devices in stages to deal with high power at high voltages. This is
expensive and unreliable.
Reference:
http://www.terrawatts.com: Liquid nitrogen is still required.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/69888

Following the http://www.terrawatts.com lead, you arrive at the statement that the
"high temperature" superconductor will be cooled by liquid nitrogen. See:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?
ArticleID=942#_When_will_HTS
The need for liquid nitrogen or liquid helium is the Achilles heal of this scheme.
Any accidental warming brings the grid to a halt. Energy is required to make
liquid nitrogen. Dry nitrogen must be cooled to 77 degrees Kelvin to make it a
liquid. [Zero degrees Kelvin is absolute zero, -273.15 degrees Centigrade.]
Liquid helium is at 4 degrees Kelvin or colder. Superconduction usually means a
requirement for liquid helium. High temperature superconductors only require
liquid nitrogen. Liquid Helium is very expensive. The cable has to be thermally
insulated and cooled its entire length. The cable also must be physically separated
into "out" and "return" wires, and the force between the 2 wires will be large. As
stated in the article, it won't be cheap.

The same problem happens to solar power. Solar power never works a night
unless you have a superconducting power line that goes all the way around the
earth, an that is 2 pies in the sky.

Any warming above the superconducting temperature or too much magnetic field
will cause the cable to quit superconducting at that point. The cable will instantly
melt, creating an electric arc. The power grid will be disabled. We really don't
have the technology yet.

What about storing wind energy as compressed air? When you compress air, it
gets hot. It then looses heat to its surroundings, loosing pressure. Storing wind
energy as compressed air is a pie in the sky. What about storing wind energy in
batteries? The lead for that many batteries would remain poisonous forever.
Another pie in the sky.

Wind energy wastes energy because the wind varies so much that a "spinning
reserve" is required in most locations. If you are running the steam powered
generator at the spinning reserve rate, you may as well use the steam as your
energy source and forget about the wind. Wind turbines are decorations, not
sources of energy for the grid until we have room temperature superconductors.
There are special locations and circumstances where wind energy is useful, but
wind cannot replace coal and nuclear any time soon. Nuclear power is the only
kind that can actually take coal fired power plants off line. If allowed to compete,
nuclear power would already have replaced coal fired power because nuclear is
30% cheaper and 24000 American lives per year safer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Much older than that Posted by: greenknight
How much coal company stock do Michael T. Klare and Arianna Huffington own?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the coal companies know that Michael T. Klare doesn't:

As long as you keep messing around with wind, solar, geothermal and wave
power, the coal industry is safe. There is no way wind, solar, geothermal and
wave power can replace coal, and they know it. Hydrogen fusion could, if it
worked. Hydrogen fusion has been "hopeful" for half a century so far. I don't
expect that to change any time soon.

If you quit being afraid of nuclear, the coal industry is doomed. Every time you
argue in favor of wind, solar, geothermal and wave power, or against nuclear,
King Coal is happy. ONLY nuclear power can put coal out of business.
Nuclear power HAS put coal out of business in France. France uses 30 year old
American technology. So here is the deal: Keep being afraid of all things
nuclear and die either when [not if] civilization collapses or when H2S comes out
of the ocean and Homo "Sapiens" goes extinct. OR: Get over your paranoia and
kick the coal habit and live. Which do you choose? I put quotation marks
around "Sapiens" because it is not clear that most of us have enough brains to
avoid extinction when it is clearly predicted and the safe path has been pointed
out. Nuclear is the safe path.

PS: Nuclear is the cheapest and safest source of electricity. Nuclear life cycle
CO2 output is the lowest per kilowatt hour because it takes a huge number of
windmills or solar collectors or wave machines or whatever to produce the same
power as a nuclear power plant. All of those windmills or whatever have
manufacturing processes that make CO2. Hydro power requires an enormous
amount of concrete. The first step in making concrete is heating limestone to
drive off the CO2. That is one of the sources of CO2 from hydro power. The
price for electricity for the various sources of power include the total life cycle
costs. The cost to build the reactor is not much different from the cost to build a
coal fired power plant and the money comes from the same source. See the next
post of mine. Whoever would pay for the reactor is the same person who would
pay for the coal burner. LOOK at the price for the electricity. It is the total life
cycle cost. Nuclear is the cheapest and the only full time replacement for coal.
Nuclear power would be much cheaper than it is if nuclear were allowed to be as
unsafe as the other sources of power. Nuclear power plants are self-insured.
Tax money is NOT involved and would not be mentioned if it were not for the
civil disturbances caused by coal company shills, alias protesters. The nuclear
industry needs and deserves protection from people who are obviously either
mentally ill or very misinformed. When tax money is mentioned with respect to
nuclear power, the money is the extra money that is wasted because of pointless
protests.

I DO NOT work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I am a retired
Department of the Army scientist and engineer. I have never worked for the
nuclear power industry.

There is NO SUCH THING as nuclear waste. There is fuel that is being wasted
for political reasons and because the coal industry has driven you paranoid. The
coal industry's reason for doing so is the $100 Billion per year cash flow they
receive as long as you remain afraid of nuclear. If you remain afraid of nuclear
and prevent the conversion from coal to nuclear, we all die. The cure is for you
to go to start acting like the French people with respect to nuclear power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael T. Klare is professor of peace and world security, not a scientist and not an engineer. He doesn't know anything about energy.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth
Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about nuclear power. Gwyneth Cravens
is a former anti-nuclear activist.

Page 13 has a chart of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production.
Nuclear power produces less greenhouse gas [CO2] than any other source,
including coal, natural gas, hydro, solar and wind. Building wind turbines and
towers also involve industrial processes such as concrete and steel making.

Nuclear power plants produce a total of 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, the
lowest. This is the full life cycle CO2 output. There are no hidden CO2 outputs.

Wind turbines produce a total of 58 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Solar power produces between 100 and 280 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Hydro power produces 240 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Natural gas produces between 439 and 688 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour.

Coal plants produce the most, between 966 and 1306 grams of CO2 per kilowatt
hour, the highest.

Remember the total is the sum of direct emissions from burning fuel and indirect
emissions from the life cycle, which means the industrial processes required to
build it. Again, nuclear comes in the lowest. Nuclear would produce even less
CO2 per kilowatt hour if the safety were lowered to the same level as other
sources of electricity. Switching from coal to nuclear is a 97% reduction in
electricity's 40% of our CO2 output. The refereed scenarios from the IPCC
failed to hold the CO2 down to 450 parts per million. You can't without building
something like 10,000 new nuclear power plants world wide to replace every coal
fired power plant on the planet. The 10,000 includes replacing all Generation 1
[Chernobyl style] power plants with safe American Generation 4 technology.
Let's get it done.

Page 211: In 2005, the production cost of electricity from:

nuclear power on average cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.00 times nuclear's
price. This is the full and total price. There are no hidden costs. There are no
subsidies. There are no tricks. 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour is all of it.
[Supposed subsidies cover the cost caused by irrational protesters. That is a cost
of civil order, not a cost of nuclear power. The price would be lower if the safety
level were lowered to equal other sources of electricity.]

from coal-fired plants 2.21 cents per kilowatt-hour 1.28 times nuclear's price

from natural gas 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.36 times nuclear's price

from oil 8.09 cents per kilowatt-hour 4.7 times nuclear's price

Wind fits in here.

solar in a sunny place 22 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.79 to 23.26 times
nuclear's price

American nuclear power reactors operated in 2005 around the clock
at about 90 percent capacity

geothermal plants operated at 75 percent capacity

coal-fired plants operated at about 73 percent capacity

hydroelectric plants at 29 percent capacity

natural gas from 16 to 38 percent capacity

wind at 27 percent capacity

solar at 19 percent capacity

[Batteries not included but required for wind and solar. Why did wind and solar
operate so far below capacity? Simple: Wind power never works when the
wind isn't blowing. Solar only works at maximum during the noon hour.]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree that nuclear fuel should not be wasted in Yucca Mountain.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yucca Mountain contains an enormous supply of nuclear fuel that
should not be wasted. We don't recycle nuclear fuel because
spent fuel is valuable and people steal it. The place it went that it
wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a small town
near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in
the business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job
there, designing a nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [The
army offered me more money to work on nuclear weapons
effects.] [A nuclear battery would have the advantage of lasting
many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor.
Numec "lost" a quantity of reactor grade uranium. It wound up in
Israel. The Israelis have fueled both their nuclear power plants
and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear "waste." See:
Pittsburghlive

It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United
States. It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste"
that you have to do the difficult process of enriching uranium,
unless you have a Canadian "CANDU" reactor or a British
Magnox reactor, both of which run on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel
in the US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution
at that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

I have no financial stake in the nuclear power industry, and I
never have. Nobody is paying me to say this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael T. Klare is professor of peace and world security studies, not a safety engineer.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is the safest kind, bar none.

Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including
Chernobyl. terra=mega mega

fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8

Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: "The Revenge
of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102. As you can see,
psychological problems are preventing the wider use of nuclear
power.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. I have
never had any connection with the nuclear power industry. I am
not being paid by anyone to post on Alternet. My sole motive is
to avoid death in the collapse of civilization and to avoid
extinction due to global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind turbines work very well on Neptune where the wind blows 900 miles per hour. On earth, wind is a 15% solution at best.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Ocean Wind Energy Potential according to NASA

Wind Energy Potential according to NASA
Large images [On the original web site. If you look at the images, you see
that the best wind is at very INconvenient locations, like near Antarctica and in the
North Pacific ocean.]

Wind energy has the potential to provide 10 to 15 percent of the world’s future
energy, according to Paul Dimotakis, chief technologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. Once windmills are installed, wind can be converted to electricity
inexpensively. But not everyone likes wind farms. The giant collection of whirling
blades mars scenic views and can kill birds and bats, particularly if located in a
high-traffic flyway. To minimize these risks, one solution may be to place wind
farms in the ocean. Wind tends to blow stronger over the ocean than over land.
The ocean presents a smooth surface over which wind can glide without
interruption, while hills, mountains, and forests tend to slow or channel wind over
land.

But, as any sailor could tell you, wind over the ocean isn’t consistent. In some
places, the air is still, while in others, the wind blows fiercely. To identify potential
wind farm locations, NASA scientists Tim Liu, Wenqing Tang, and Xiaosu Xie, all
at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, mapped out average wind intensity over the
ocean between 2000 and 2007. They created their maps from data collected by
NASA’s Quick Scatterometer (QuickSCAT), which measures wind speed and
direction over the world’s oceans. The satellite sends pulses of microwave energy
through the atmosphere to the ocean surface and measures the energy that bounces
back from the wind-roughened surface. The energy of the microwave pulses
changes depending on wind speed and direction. The scientists averaged
QuikSCAT’s measured wind speeds by season, and then calculated the wind
power density, the amount of energy that could be derived from a wind turbine in a
given location. Their maps for the winter and summer seasons are shown here.

Wind strength is influenced by seasonal patterns, land-ocean interactions, land
topography, and ocean temperatures. All of these interactions are evident in this
pair of images. Areas of high wind power density, where winds are strongest, are
purple, while low power density regions are light blue and white.

The largest patterns shown in the images are seasonal patterns. In December,
January, and February, winter storms fuel strong winds in the mid-latitudes of the
Northern Hemisphere. In June, July, and August, winter reigns in the Southern
Hemisphere, and the pattern is reversed. The Asian monsoon also controls the
seasonal distribution of wind. In June, July, and August, strong winds gust across
the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. From December to February, the monsoon
winds blow over the East China Sea. Finally, the trade winds trace their way
across the tropics, stronger in the winter than in the summer.

==================article continues at the URL above=========

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Still wrong on ALL counts Posted by: PaulC
COAL contains uranium
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
COAL companies have DUPED most Americans into thinking that Nuclear power
is dangerous. Nuclear is the safest. Nuclear has killed ZERO Americans.
Meanwhile, COAL kills 24000 Americans every year. Coal kills more like a
Million Chinese every year.

Coal is mostly carbon, but the complete list of impurities in coal includes every
element in the periodic table. The major impurities are, depending on where
you found it: URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt,
Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur,
Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium,
Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. Coal smoke and
cinders are commercially viable ORE for the above elements. Chinese industrial
grade coal contains much more arsenic than American coal. Chinese industrial
grade coal is sometimes stolen by peasants for cooking. The result is that the
whole family dies of arsenic poisoning. Coal varies a lot. You have to analyze
it not only mine by mine but even lump by lump. Coal is a rock. It comes out
of the ground. What would you expect of a rock?
Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1000 million watt coal fired power plant puts
out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium
can go: Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase. The full fuel load and the years between fueling varies from reactor to
reactor, but one truck can carry the weight of a full nuclear fuel load.
See also: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power can completely replace coal and supplant other fossil fuels.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have enough nuclear fuel for FIVE THOUSAND YEARS according to
"Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby. "Breeding" fissionable
fuel and recycling nuclear fuel greatly extends the supply. We have many
possible uranium mines that we haven't started mining. The reasons we are not
doing so are political and psychological. Most people have an irrational fear of
anything nuclear caused by coal industry propaganda.

Everything, including yourself, is made of atoms. All atoms have nuclei. You
have many atomic nuclei inside yourself since you are made of atoms. The
simplest nucleus is one proton [hydrogen]. That would be a hydrogen atom. An
oxygen atom has 8 protons and either 8, 9 or 10 neutrons in its nucleus. All other
nuclei also have neutrons. Uranium has 92 protons and either 143 or 146
neutrons. If it has 143 neutrons it is U235. If it has 146 neutrons, it is U238.
Nuclear fuel is only 2% to 8% U235, the kind that fissions/divides, providing
energy. The rest is U238 that doesn't fission. A nuclear reaction happens when a
neutron is captured by a nucleus. If a U235 nucleus captures a neutron, the
nucleus and the atom split approximately in half and 2 or 3 neutrons are released
because the 2 smaller nuclei don't need so many neutrons. If a U238 nucleus
captures a neutron, it ejects an electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The
U238 thus becomes Plutonium 239 [Pu239]. In a power reactor, the Pu239
quickly captures another neutron, becoming Pu240. Pu240 is useless for making
bombs, which is why governments that have plutonium bombs have their own
special reactors to make Pu239. Plutonium is fissionable, which means that
plutonium is a good fuel. If you add Thorium to the fuel, you can make more
fissionable uranium. If a Thorium atom nucleus captures a neutron, it ejects an
electron and the neutron becomes a proton. The Thorium atom thus becomes
U233. U233 is fissionable.

Depending on the design of the reactor and the mix of the fuel, the fuel % in the
reactor can either grow or shrink. It is kind of like the fuel gauge can go either up
or down, but it is more like the reactor can run hotter or cooler over time. The
temperature is kept constant by adjusting the control rods. A breeder reactor is a
reactor designed to make the fissionable part of the fuel load grow rapidly. In the
US, fuel is left in the reactor for about 10 years, or 10% of the fuel is replaced each
year. The reprocessing step sorts out the fuel and puts the percentage of
fissionable fuel back to the starting percentage. In the process, plutonium may be
removed and either wasted or used as fuel. If we add thorium to the fuel, we can
make more uranium than we put in. Since the earth contains more than twice as
much thorium as uranium, it would be wise to make thorium into uranium. By
reprocessing nuclear fuel, we get an enormous, many centuries long fuel supply.

The products of fission are also removed when fuel is reprocessed. These are just
other atoms that are no longer useful as fuel. The quantity is very small.
We should reprocess fuel to keep the fuel load at the correct percentage of
fissionable fuel for the particular reactor design. Instead, we go through the
expensive process of making more "virgin" fuel for each new fuel load. This
greatly increases the price you pay for electricity. We are not reprocessing
nuclear fuel for political reasons. France reprocesses fuel and France has a
nuclear waste repository.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Joe the Voter need energy & conservation.
Posted by: reelectnoone on Nov 10, 2008 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree but I also believe people need to have an avenue of input into the process. I have opened a new site and invite people to join me there to help draft suggestions for the coming years.


CLICK JOE THE VOTER


No money involved, non-partisan, just people working together. Looking for volunteers starting with some well educated experts to work with a panel of average citizens from the left and the right to help create some model legislation to present to Congress.

We gained a lot of momentum in this election...I hate to see that die out now so challenge everyone to participate in their new government in some way. This is our future. We handed it over to government and walked away in the past. We can't do that now !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what's left to satisfy our future energy needs?
Posted by: toddcory on Nov 10, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"So what's left to satisfy our future energy needs?"

Ahhh, I know it is a dirty word here in 'murica... but I saw no mention of CONSERVATION in this article.

Todd

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abiotic Oil is a hoax
Posted by: manderson on Nov 10, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm surprised you abiotic fanatics are still here. Russia's oil production peaked (for the SECOND time) in 2007, they recently admitted. Look at the EIA's figures, if you need some more help. Ah, well, hope springs eternal, I guess. I hope Obama can sort of the Professional Cult Of Hope people from the realists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PS
Posted by: manderson on Nov 10, 2008 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That fellow Lindsey Williams who is all hopped up about Alaska oil is a Baptist minister! Evangelicals don't have a real good track record with science in general----the last election cycle proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe he and Sarah Palin can pray up some crude at the big church in Wasilla.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Simple But Profound Solution
Posted by: Last Chance on Nov 10, 2008 10:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Peacefully reduce the human population and there will be plenty of energy for everyone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "...Switch that energy off...?! Posted by: Last Chance
» Why don't you go first? Posted by: maxpayne
» Sorry, meant to reply to LC. Posted by: maxpayne
What a Load of Cobblers!
Posted by: writerman on Nov 10, 2008 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blimey, I thought there'd be some intelligent, thoughtful, comments about Klare's article and the strategic implicaitions for the United States; but what turns up? A load of barmy, bonkers, cobblers, about mysterious, semi-magical, hidden and close to unlimited supplies of energy! A startling mix of alchemy and secret alien technology! What a larf.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a Load of Cobblers! Posted by: richholland
Klare is not well informed about wind and solar
Posted by: PaulC on Nov 10, 2008 3:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The potential for both is off the charts, which is not to say we should not put conservation at the top of the list. Rather, I am simply pointing out the potential of these sources for totally supplanting fossil sources, starting right now.

See the following two articles for more info on wind and solar use on a large scale in the US:
DOE 20 percent wind report
A Solar Grand Plan

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reduce the Military Energy Budget
Posted by: Casey Burns on Nov 10, 2008 4:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the biggest savings in energy can come from reducing how much energy the Military uses. Those bombers etc. use a bunch of fuel. I suspect the Military is our largest consumer of energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT you left out
Posted by: nahikurain@mac.com on Nov 10, 2008 5:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it difficult to swallow that in contemplating the problems with coal you neglected to mention anything about the HORRIBLE way it is currently being mined-- Mountain Top REmoval-- deforestation to the point of never being able to grow forests on this "land" again-- visit www.ilovemountains.org to see a picture, or fly over KY in a Southwings airplane and cry...
We need our forests to produce oxygen, hold carbon, reduce carbon in the air, hold water, hold soil, cover game, supply lumber (managed)ohhh it is soooo wrong, so not okay-
coal is a double edged sword, cutting the communities to shreds in its acquisition and then destroying the planet again when it's burned, let alone this "cleaning process" that leaves sludge impoundments-- see sludgesaftey.org-- it is a NIGHTMARE
SEE this--- this is really IT- and water- the precious watershed, oh, I could go on for days how wrong it is-- but listen, it's over
Coal is over
coal is over, it's over-- coal is done, it's over

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear power plants have NOTHING to do with proliferation of nuclear bombs.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 6:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Power to Save the World; The Truth About Nuclear
Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens, 2007 Finally a truthful book about
nuclear power.

Page 50: Power reactors make Plutonium 240 [Pu240]. Pu240 is
useless for making bombs. Plutonium bombs require Pu239.
Pu239 is made in reactors that are specialized for making Pu239.
Governments own Pu239 makers, not power companies.

Page 180: ""In 2006, more than 435 reactors in thirty two
countries supplied 16 percent of the world's electricity with a safety
record far superior to that of fossil fuel or hydroelectric generation --
and that's including the Chernobyl fatalities."

Page 153: "By 2013 a total of 500 metric tons, or the equivalent of
20,000 warheads, will be turned into low-enriched fuel with the
energy equivalent of three billion tons of coal (thirty million coal
cars)." Old Soviet uranium bombs are being converted into reactor
fuel by oxidizing the pure metallic U235 [burning it] and mixing the
uranium rust with non-fissionable U238. Bombs require pure shiny
reduced metallic U235. Reactors use very impure [2% to 8%]
U235 oxide mixed with U238 oxide or other non-fissionable
material. Bombs require that pure shiny metal U235 or Plutonium
239 slam into pure shiny metal U235 or pure shiny metal Plutonium
239, respectively. Reactors can use converted bomb material as
fuel, but power reactors are NOT a source of bomb material. Once
you have made Plutonium 240, it is useless for making bombs.
There is no way to make it back into Plutonium 239.
Making plutonium239 for bombs requires a special kind of breeder
reactor [not an ordinary breeder reactor] that only governments
who make bombs own.
Any connection between nuclear power and proliferation is purely
delusional. They are not related.

India, China and Russia have nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs
already. We should give or sell them the latest [and therefore
safest and cleanest] nuclear power plant technology. The
alternative to nuclear power is more coal fired power plants. It is
coal fired power plants that are making 40% of our CO2 and it is
CO2 that is causing global warming. It is global warming that
will surely cause the fall of civilization and perhaps the extinction
of Homo Sapiens. Coal fired plants will have to be replaced
100% with nuclear power plants by 2015 to prevent the fall of
civilization and the extinction of Homo Sapiens. Nuclear power
saves us from 14.7 million tons of CO2 per 1000 megawatts per
year, compared to coal. Remember that coal contains uranium
and a long list of other poisons. The alternatives to nuclear power
are the collapse of civilization and the extinction of Homo Sapiens.

I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry. I
am not being paid to say the above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Energy Independence versus Global Warming
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 10, 2008 6:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world is facing global warming. That's a bigger challenge than peak oil.

First, our biosphere has about a 30 year lag, which means that it's only responding now to the carbon dioxide levels we achieved in the 1970s. We're looking at the 2008 back end of the boomerang hitting us thirty years from now.

Second, "peak oil" has only shifted most of the world to two high-carbon fuels -- coal and forests. Peak oil has accelerated the rate of rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Third, the Arctic is experiencing a runaway methane release curve. On the order of a trillion metric tons of methane is frozen in the Arctic, some on the ocean bottom, some on land. Maybe 20 million tons of the stuff melted last summer. Methane is 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. We know from geologic records such as ice cores that the world has unexplained sudden heat jumps throughout geologic history. We could be triggering a doozie.

Mining more coal is good for American energy independence, but America can't afford it. Most of Florida might as well give up and move north. The predicted sea level rise might wait a while but the hurricane storm surges sure won't. All American homeowners pay for global warming every time they open their insurance bills. Everybody else on earth pays too.

We need global treaties concerning coal, and the world needs to get serious about not cutting the rain forests flat.

Wind is a no-brainer. A Stanford professor estimates that we have 330 gigawatts of wind power off the coast between Maine and Virginia with water depths of under 100 meters, excluding beach areas, shipping channels and so on. The east coast could only use maybe 60 gigawatts if we tried. The Midwest and off the Pacific coast are also loaded with wind power.

Wind's only major threat is cheap solar electricity. Geothermal is a relatively puny threat. Wave power needs to work before it's any threat.

Wind electricity can recharge electric cars at night. If every gas station had a battery pack swapping station, cars could drive from coast to coast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CALL ME AN OPTIMIST...
Posted by: steveselverston on Nov 10, 2008 9:01 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to disagree with the suggestion that there are currently no alternatives that can replace oil. Although investment in nuclear power is on the decline in the U.S., it seems to me that we could theoretically build enough nuclear plants to replace oil if the other alternatives can't. We could then use that electricity for both electric cars (and light rail systems), and for the production of plastics made from synthetic olefins. In the meantime, we can improve more ideal alternative technologies (including production, storage, and distribution).
Steve Selverston

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chernobyl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 10, 2008 11:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to
me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-
of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled
to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat
and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly
going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion.
Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently
igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate
ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow
containment buildings to have easily removable tops.
Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to
be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of
radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would
release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a
shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive
material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why
the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
The reason is that the Soviet Union didn't spend money on R&D
for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American
reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way
overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to
Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing
like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet
built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.
The book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don't
believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies.
Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book.
Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because
of coal industry pressure.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear
power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is nothing similar about
them except that they both need fissile materials. But they need DIFFERENT
fissile materials and they use them very differently. Nuclear power is NOT a
derivative of a bomb. Nuclear power was thought of Before the bomb.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile material into a small
space. There is no other material in the volume containing the nuclear explosive.
The fissile material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If it is uranium,
it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less uranium 238. If the fissile material
is plutonium, Pu239 is required for a bomb because Pu240 won't explode. These
fissile materials are metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are
difficult to compress, a high explosive [high speed explosive] is required to
compress them. Pieces of the fissile material have to slam into each other hard for
the nuclear reactions to take place. Bright, shiny reduced metal is required as
bomb fuel.
A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power generation, does not have
any pure fissile material. The fuel may be 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium
238. A mixture of 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238 cannot be made to
explode no matter how hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed in with
the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot be made to explode like
a nuclear bomb no matter how hard you try. Reactor fuel is not bright shiny
reduced metal. Reactor fuel is uranium oxide [uranium rust] and plutonium oxide
[plutonium rust]. Bombs can't explode on rust. There has never been a nuclear
explosion in a reactor and there never will be. [Reduced Uranium and plutonium
are flammable, but a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is further diluted by being
divided and sealed into many small steel capsules. The capsules are contained in
steel tubes, further dividing the reactor fuel. The fuel is further diluted by
the need for coolant to flow around the capsules and through the core so that heat
can be transported to a place where heat energy can be converted to electrical
energy. A reactor does not contain any high speed [or any other speed] chemical
explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not have any explosive materials
at all.
As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no possible way that a
reactor could ever explode like a nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very
different. Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each other.
Recommendation: Nuclear power is the safest kind and it just got safer. Convert
all coal-fired power plants to nuclear ASAP. See the December 2005 issue of
Scientific American article on a new type of nuclear reactor that consumes the
nuclear "waste" as fuel.
I do not have any financial stake in the nuclear industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Tiny Fraction?
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Nov 11, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, according to this article only a "tiny fraction" of our electricity can be supplied by wind and solar power.

Since I installed solar panels on my roof, my annual electric bill has been cut in half. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I don't think that a 50% reduction is adequately characterized by the term "a tiny fraction".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the easiest first step is to use less
Posted by: ritzjon on Nov 11, 2008 10:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The simplest first step is to use less energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be afraid ... really ... be very afraid ...
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 11, 2008 4:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was revealed recently that melting in the arctic is occurring THIRTY YEARS ahead of previous estimates. If this kind of acceleration in global climate destruction doesn't pucker your butt, it should.

We are on our own one-yard line –– and the clock is running out

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American reactors are safe from terrorists who want to make dirty bombs.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2008 11:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All Western nuclear power plants have Containment Buildings
which protect the world outside from anything that can possibly
happen in the core. Western containment buildings are why
Chernobyl cannot happen in the US. Containment buildings are
pressure vessels, unlike the building the Chernobyl reactor was in.
The walls, ceiling and floor are a minimum of 1 meter [about 39
inches] thick and HEAVILY reinforced with steel. There is so
much steel reinforcing rod that when you look at one under
construction, you wonder where there will be any room for
concrete. The concrete itself is superconcrete, not the kind your
driveway is made of. There is no explosion that could ever
happen inside the core or the containment building that would
have any chance at all of making a hole in the containment
building. The containment building is many times stronger than
required to contain any explosion that could happen there.

Furherbunkers: When you are digging a hole to build a tall
building in Berlin, Germany and you encounter Hitler's bunker,
you don't try to destroy or remove the furherbunker.
Furherbunkers cannot be removed or destroyed. You just set the
new building on the furherbunker. The same is true of American
reactor containment buildings. They are indestructible by
ordinary means, including huge amounts of ordinary explosives.

Likewise, there is nothing a terrorist could do to a nuclear power
plant that could cause a radiation leak. Just putting a hole in the
containment building would be pointless anyway. Radiation
would not leak out, but the reactor would be shut down while the
hole was fixed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American nuclear power plants have no possibility of conventional or steam explosion resulting in a dirty bomb.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2008 11:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two types of 21st century reactors that cannot melt down no matter how
badly they are treated. Safety is guaranteed by laws of physics.
In the pebble bed reactors, stopping coolant flow removes the space between
fuel pellets. The space between fuel pellets must be filled with moving water.
The water is the moderator to slow down the neutrons so that the reaction can take
place. No coolant flow, no reaction. These pebble bed reactors will never
experience a meltdown. It just can't happen because of laws of nature.
In the recommended and newly invented helium cooled reactor, the core is
made of high temperature materials that simply will not melt if coolant flow
ceases. The core is cooled from a higher temperature by heating the containment
building, which also does not melt. The containment building heats its
surroundings in the case of coolant flow loss. The helium cooled reactor uses
helium as the working fluid to turn a turbine. Helium gas is the ideal fluid to turn
a turbine because it can be made very pure so that the turbine blades will last a
very long time.
Safety is assured in all US built reactors by the containment building, which is a
pressure vessel and which, as in the case of the now obsolete 3 mile island reactor,
can and did contain the overheated core. There were ZERO casualties.

American reactors are now too safe. Nuclear power is overpriced because of the
excessive safety. 20,000 to 30,000 Americans die each year because of those
poisons I listed below that come out of coal fired power plants. It is C O A L fired
power plants that kill 20,000 to 30,000 Americans each year. Nuclear power
plants kill ZERO Americans each year. It is COAL burning that will make us go
extinct in about 200 years if we keep doing it.

The problem is that we OVERSHOT on safety design because of people like
lrrysgl. American reactors are TOO safe. It is C O A L fired power plants that
give you 100 times as much radiation. Coal is almost pure carbon, except for
the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron,
Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine,
Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. We
could fuel our nuclear plants from the uranium and thorium in the smoke and
cinders from coal fired power plants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chernobyl is not possible in the US.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 11, 2008 11:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A friend of mine from Oak Ridge National Laboratory wrote to
me: "The reactor that had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-
of-date (1st generation) design that has to be precisely controlled
to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water carries away heat
and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused
Chernobyl to blow its top was residual water in the core suddenly
going to high pressure steam and erupting into a steam explosion.
Since the building top was simply resting by its weight on the
walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently
igniting a carbon fire." The United States and other Western
countries DO NOT now build and do not now posses or operate
ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we allow
containment buildings to have easily removable tops.
Containment buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to
be pressure vessels.
The Chernobyl accident released less than 200 tons of
radioactive material, as much as a coal-fired power plant would
release in 7 years and 5 months. The Chernobyl accident had a
shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The radioactive
material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why
the Chernobyl accident had impact. The Three Mile Island
incident did NOT release a noticeable amount of radiation into its
neighborhood because it had a good containment building and
because it was a more modern design.
The reason is that the Soviet Union didn't spend money on R&D
for nuclear safety. The US did. Over 60 years, American
reactors have become so safe it is ridiculous. We have way
overspent on nuclear reactor safety, driving up the cost of
electricity. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, coal fired electric
power plants kill 24,000 people per year in the US according to
Discover magazine. Reactors built in the US in 2008 are nothing
like the very first reactor ever, built in the US in 1944. Soviet
built reactors were just copies of the 1944 reactor.
The book: "Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy", by B. Comby
has more truthful information on this if you are interested. Don't
believe the urban legends that were started by coal companies.
Order the book from: http://www.comby.org/livres/livresen.htm
See: http://www.ecolo.org for more information on the book.
Most books on the subject in most libraries may be there because
of coal industry pressure.

I have no connection with the nuclear power industry. Nobody is
paying me to post this. I have never worked for the nuclear
power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]