The Future : American Independance of Foreign Oil

[Clouse123456]

The Commerical
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2bOug1d20c


The man's Plan!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQa-ibNOKM
Tell me what you guys think.

[roy34543]

Its a great dream to have and hopefully attainable. But boy its a long-term soloution rather then short-term.

[Viking Prince]

This is not a new idea. He is absolutely correct that using natural gas for electric generation is a poor use of the resource. The problem is that part of this resource is home heating and cooking. Much more efficient than electricity. And a competitor to vehicle fuel use.

His model is static with no consumption growth. This is also a problem. Typical transition models assume the growth in energy use comes from the redistribution of resource weights. The existing consumption sources do not get eliminated. This means that as energy consumption increases, petroleum consumption remains static. Imports of oil still grow since domestic production drops in most of the models.

He also mentions that nuclear is not in the model as presented, but part of the change. A new plant project starting planning and licensing today will be operation by 2020. This is in keeping with the wind plan time scale.

A more realistic solution is to push all technologies a bit. Drill more. Bio mass more. Nuclear quite a bit more. Natural gas more (but as he pointed out, shut down the developement of electric generation from gas) By the way, this is a favorite off the utility industry because it is cheap, clean, and domesticly supplied. Coal and nuclear have political problems as well as technical disadvantages. Hydro is pretty much fully developed.

Another problem is the grid uses AC to distribute and balance power distribution nationally. This is very inefficient over distance. A central corrider of wind power will not provide cost effective electricity to the Atlantic and Pacific coast communities. The west coast is assumed to be a combination of coal, gas and hydro. East coast is coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. Growth in nuclear is thus essential if gas is to be taken out of the growth mix. Wind cannot do it alone.

I cannot find the resource, but about 1990 -- the East coast petroleum consumption equalled the entire import tally for the country. Too many fuel oil heating plants and power generation plants.

[the_mango55]

Screw wind and solar. They are worthless.


We need more nuclear.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Screw wind and solar. They are worthless.


We need more nuclear.

Wind and Solar has less chance of expiring. Plus, where do we put the waste?

[Viking Prince]

Wind and Solar has less chance of expiring. Plus, where do we put the waste?

Why debate which energy source to develope. Push all that are currently economic and research the rest.


Also -- for those who are concerned about conversion to natural gas for auto/truck transport -- The conversion T Boone Pickens refers to is the reduced use of gasolene and the increased use of natural gas. No actual vehicle need be converted itself. The vehcles will age out of the national fleet and the new will be natural gas powered. You could convert an existing vehicle, but why? Not the American way. No one upgrades the personal computer anymore -- dispose and but new. Same with automobiles and trucks. (I suspect diesel will still be with use also.)

[Chlodwig I.]

nuclear won't last forever, its a fossile fuel like gas or oil
and the treatment of the nuklear waste is extremly expensive and dangerous
don't forget the danger of a accident in a nuclear power plant

the only positive thing of a npp is that it doesn't create co2

[antares24]

his plan about using more wind power is a good one, but as he said that can cover only part of Usa energy needs, so solar, clean coal and nuclear will be needed too.
About the use of natural gas on venicles, well i can only agree, i own a sporty car that use methane as combustible , no loss of perfomance, really low pollution, and i spend 1/3 of what i'll spend going with gasoline
So the use of natural gas instead of gasoline on cars can be done easily, the technology existed for a long time, just consider that i had buyed this car 8 months ago, but my previous car, that i used for 6 years, used methane too, and here in Italy a lot of people are converting their gasoline cars in gasoline/methane or gasoline/gpl dual use, equal perfomances and much cheaper.
Another thing to reduce america oil imports is simply more efficiency in its use, i don't remember the data exactly, but a recent article showed how the average west European consumed something like 1/3 of the oil the average american consumed, with a very similar life style, so here too a great deal of saving can be done.

[the_mango55]

nuclear won't last forever, its a fossile fuel like gas or oil
and the treatment of the nuklear waste is extremly expensive and dangerous
don't forget the danger of a accident in a nuclear power plant

the only positive thing of a npp is that it doesn't create co2

Actually, there's enough Uranium for nuclear energy to last for hundreds of years.

You can actually recycle the waste, but for God knows what reason that's actually illegal in America right now. That would need to change soon.

There is almost no danger of an accident. Chernobyl was terribly built and terribly run, it could never happen at a modern nuclear facility. Three mile island was extremely minor (no injuries attributed to the accident) but is still unlikely to happen again.

The positive thing about Nuclear Power is that it's efficient, inexpensive, and eco friendly, and doesn't destroy skylines and kill birds like nuclear, or take up massive tracts of land like solar.

[Chlodwig I.]

Actually, there's enough Uranium for nuclear energy to last for hundreds of years.

You can actually recycle the waste, but for God knows what reason that's actually illegal in America right now. That would need to change soon.

There is almost no danger of an accident. Chernobyl was terribly built and terribly run, it could never happen at a modern nuclear facility. Three mile island was extremely minor (no injuries attributed to the accident) but is still unlikely to happen again.

The positive thing about Nuclear Power is that it's efficient, inexpensive, and eco friendly, and doesn't destroy skylines and kill birds like nuclear, or take up massive tracts of land like solar.

That was also said about oil, so I wouldn't count on it
You can recycle the waste and use it as new "fuel" for another typ of nclear power plant, but that doesn't reduce the amount of dangerous waste in the long run.

last year two accidents happend in Germany and only one week ago one in France, both in germany have been minor and could have happend in every powerplant, the one in France is also considererd minor but some nuclear/toxic waste was released into a river.....
Saying no danger of an accident etc. is just to simple
accidents will happen every time.
some are not worth to mention, others are more concerning,
and every additonal nuclear powerplants is also increasing chance that something like chernobyl will happen again.

cheap?
Its only cheaper if you don't count in the cost that are normaly not included in the price for the energy,
like the dumping of the waste and the cost of a major accident,
which is both payed by taxpayers
because if the companies would have to put it into thier price calculation the costs would be extreme.

Eco friendly?
Sorry but a technology that is crating waste that is deadly/toxic for the next 1000 years is something i wouldn't call eco friendly.

[christof139]

That was also said about oil, so I wouldn't count on it
You can recycle the waste and use it as new "fuel" for another typ of nclear power plant, but that doesn't reduce the amount of dangerous waste in the long run.

last year two accidents happend in Germany and only one week ago one in France, both in germany have been minor and could have happend in every powerplant, the one in France is also considererd minor but some nuclear/toxic waste was released into a river.....
Saying no danger of an accident etc. is just to simple
accidents will happen every time.
some are not worth to mention, others are more concerning,
and every additonal nuclear powerplants is also increasing chance that something like chernobyl will happen again.

cheap?
Its only cheaper if you don't count in the cost that are normaly not included in the price for the energy,
like the dumping of the waste and the cost of a major accident,
which is both payed by taxpayers
because if the companies would have to put it into thier price calculation the costs would be extreme.

Eco friendly?
Sorry but a technology that is crating waste that is deadly/toxic for the next 1000 years is something i wouldn't call eco friendly.

All nations in the present and past have created and will continue to create toxic and other wastes. the pint is to reuse, recyvcle as much of that waste as possible and properly dispose of the rest, and the USA has very good enviro. programs in operation and has had them since about 1970, although emission scrubbers and some other operating enviro. protection technology is now old and needs to be replaced since it has been operating since the 1970's when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations and China and many other nations in the world inlcuding Western Europe had zero pollution controls.

Chris

[Chlodwig I.]

All nations in the present and past have created and will continue to create toxic and other wastes. the pint is to reuse, recyvcle as much of that waste as possible and properly dispose of the rest, and the USA has very good enviro. programs in operation and has had them since about 1970, although emission scrubbers and some other operating enviro. protection technology is now old and needs to be replaced since it has been operating since the 1970's when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations and China and many other nations in the world inlcuding Western Europe had zero pollution controls.

Chris

Oh sorry I didn't knwo that USA has solved the problem with the
storage of nuclear waste because no other country in the world has found any other solution then dumping it in old salt mines.

But Strangley even the CEO of a American Energyp supplier that runs some NPP has no clue of how to deal with the nuclear waste.

[danzig]

That was also said about oil, so I wouldn't count on it
You can recycle the waste and use it as new "fuel" for another typ of nclear power plant, but that doesn't reduce the amount of dangerous waste in the long run.

Well what do you want? If nuclear power can last 100+ years isnt that good enough? I dont know why people are so caught up on the magic bullet as if somewhere there is someone who will create an infinite energy source with no negative impact on the environmental at all, is dirt cheap, easy to manfacture....we arent going to get this, too many people want perfection. It is why I just groan when I hear people go oh no drilling offshore or Alaska because it will take 10 years to actually get any production out of it and then it might only produce for 20-40 years. Thinking short term is dangerous and unwise but thinking too far long term can create a situtation where nothing is done because we are too busy pondering what ifs or holding out for something better.

We must work with what we have right this moment and that is nuclear, clean coal etc. Things like solar and wind can be useful but are not reliable enough to be real solutions.

[Chlodwig I.]

Well what do you want? If nuclear power can last 100+ years isnt that good enough? I dont know why people are so caught up on the magic bullet as if somewhere there is someone who will create an infinite energy source with no negative impact on the environmental at all, is dirt cheap, easy to manfacture....we arent going to get this, too many people want perfection. It is why I just groan when I hear people go oh no drilling offshore or Alaska because it will take 10 years to actually get any production out of it and then it might only produce for 20-40 years. Thinking short term is dangerous and unwise but thinking too far long term can create a situtation where nothing is done because we are too busy pondering what ifs or holding out for something better.

We must work with what we have right this moment and that is nuclear, clean coal etc. Things like solar and wind can be useful but are not reliable enough to be real solutions.

I think nuclear waste radiates more then 100+ years.
No one asked about a wonderous energy source, even wind, water and solar energy create waste, and need to be produced

But I thing in long term the courent high prices are a possibility for change
for change towards a better energy mix with the use of more renewable resources.
I can't predict 100 years+

ButI can predict human
and one thing is sure when energy and fuel gets cheap again the people will switch back to wasteing energy and fuel.
If we don't think now about new ways of creating and storring energy
we won't reach anything, it will just be business as usual

By the way the petrol engine was invented in 1862,
no we have 2008 maybe its time to find a new and better technology

[Admiral Piett]

I can tell you, nothing fascinates me more than hydrogen engines and I believe that is the real future for automotives. That would cut our oil consumption I would guess by like 65 - 70%.

[Viking Prince]

I can tell you, nothing fascinates me more than hydrogen engines and I believe that is the real future for automotives. That would cut our oil consumption I would guess by like 65 - 70%.

And your source of energy to get the hydrogen? Please do not say oil, solar, biomass, nuclear - etc. The question on this thread is the generation of power and not the transformation of power from one source to another. I'm afraid hydrogen is in the latter category. It is not a power source on its own. Yes, you can get hydrogen from water, but what is the energy cost?

I do agree it has the potential, though not as good as natural gas/methane. Carbon chains are established already. Transition is easier.

[Hounf of Culan]

Yah mango, nuclear FTW! Whoever said nuclear is a fossil has no idea what he's talking about. The US has more uranium than it will ever need for a few centuries. Nuclear is also many times over more efficient than all other means of providing power. And contrary to popular belief, the waste is rather easy to contain properly.

[Viking Prince]

Yah mango, nuclear FTW! Whoever said nuclear is a fossil has no idea what he's talking about. The US has more uranium than it will ever need for a few centuries. Nuclear is also many times over more efficient than all other means of providing power. And contrary to popular belief, the waste is rather easy to contain properly.

Agreed. The problem is more political, but there are always technical issues also.

[Admiral Piett]

I understand that, Viking. Was merely commenting. Isn't water the source of hydrogen?

I would not support a large expansion of nuclear energy. If we loose control of it, then we're screwed. I know the possibility is little, but we're human, and humans make mistakes and I'd rather not have humans working with nuclear energy, at least not until we understand it more.

[roy34543]

I know this may sound ridicolous to some people, But wind is actually gaining ground in recent years.
its become a lot more efficient and it looks extremely viable, it creates some of the cheapest megawatts on earth in fact the only negative effect of wind is that it will cause your views to look ugly.. Well too bad im sure you can sacrifice them. Especially offshore wind platforms are become extremely useful . Of course there is the problem that a serious tide could destroy them...

http://www.economist.com/search/disp...ry_id=11482484