What is the REAL solution for energy?

[T Park]

Watching Boston legal tonight, the arguement was over a person NOT wanting a Nuculear reactor in their back yards.
The arguements on both side were fantastic, and honestly the show can be liberal at times, but they do a good job IMO of giving both sides of the issue.

There are alot of proposals to the solution for energy but alot of it IMO is driven by agendas and money.

So what is the solution?

Solar?

Wind?

hydroelectric?

nuculear?

Would love to hear everyone's opinions.

[Nbadan]

...Innovation...we can't afford to keep repeating the past...whether you believe in global climate change or not, you have to agree that having all that sout in the air isn't healthy....We've had some good conversations here in the past about nano-technology and giant solar panels in space...

[Twisted_Dawg]

Wind is really getting big and conservation is important.

But, if you were around here in the 1970's you recall an energy shortage we had because of a natural gas crook we were doing business with. At night the lights of freeways were turned off, a lot of signs were off, parking lots dark, etc. Real spooky.

I am not saying we need a return to that. But why is the city lit up like Times Square from say 2:00am to 6:00am? Might 50% of the lights in shopping center parking lots be programmed to turn off or be dimmed down? The same with our freeway lighting.

If we just cut our electrical useage by 50% in that time slot, how much less coal do we burn?

[xrayzebra]

Pure and simple. Oil is the energy of the future, along with
natural gas and coal. The global warming thing, even though
many politicians have just got on the wagon, has been proven
to be a hoax. Oil, Gas and Coal is what made this nation and
will continue to energize it in the foreseeable future. There is
nothing else out there. And conservation is a joke too. We
cannot conserve our way out of our so called energy crisis. The
world is floating in oil and the U.S. has plenty of it's own, if
the wacko's and politician's would just get out of the way and
let us go get it.

[dimsah]

Why not all of the above?

Depending on the area of the country you could use varying methods of at least supplementing energy needs.
Southwestern states have Sun and wind, northern states have geothermal, etc.

[spurster]

Nuclear. It's far from perfect, but nuclear gets the US the most away from subservience to the Saudis and adding to air pollution and global warming.

[Holt's Cat]

Solution? A free market, little to no regulation, enforce property rights (re: pollution), low taxes, etc...

The problem currently is that certain businesses (ie nuclear power generation) are tied up by a few people who find it easy to scare the public into believing they will end up with a Chernobyl in their city while other businesses manage to curry enough favor with state and federal legislators to get certain anticompetitive benefits from state and federal governments (grandfathering coal-fired power plants in Texas to keep them from being subject to the Texas Clean Air Act(?)comes to mind). In short, there is not a free market. And usually what passes for "deregulation" is not so, but merely a mask for a some kind of handout to certain large political donors.

I think what is key is that the government get out of the business of trying to micromanage what particular technologies it wants to support due to whoever will bribe them the most and stick to ensuring that the government does what it's supposed to and support free and open competition, while enforcing the rights of the citizenry to not see their property as well as the air and waterways polluted because a certain firm doesn't want to pay for the true cost of their pollution.

[fyatuk]

So what is the solution?

Solar?

Wind?

hydroelectric?

nuculear?

Would love to hear everyone's opinions.

There's not one right now. Solar and Wind are too inefficient to handle large scale supply. Their great for supplemental addons right now, but that's about it.

It's very unlikely hydroelectric, at least in the form of dams, is untenable environmental wise. Other forms like tidal, etc, are again not efficient enough to be introduced on a large scale.

And then there's the problems with nuclear energy that everyone knows about.

Bio fuels, etc, is a solution for fuel supply, but not for environmental cost.

Really, we should move towards nuclear energy, which is the most efficient and clean of the large scale possibilities, and work to supplement with solar energy panel and wind farms while contributing mass quantities of research money for other methods.

[T Park]

Solution? A free market, little to no regulation, enforce property rights (re: pollution), low taxes, etc...

The problem currently is that certain businesses (ie nuclear power generation) are tied up by a few people who find it easy to scare the public into believing they will end up with a Chernobyl in their city while other businesses manage to curry enough favor with state and federal legislators to get certain anticompetitive benefits from state and federal governments (grandfathering coal-fired power plants in Texas to keep them from being subject to the Texas Clean Air Act(?)comes to mind). In short, there is not a free market. And usually what passes for "deregulation" is not so, but merely a mask for a some kind of handout to certain large political donors.

I think what is key is that the government get out of the business of trying to micromanage what particular technologies it wants to support due to whoever will bribe them the most and stick to ensuring that the government does what it's supposed to and support free and open competition, while enforcing the rights of the citizenry to not see their property as well as the air and waterways polluted because a certain firm doesn't want to pay for the true cost of their pollution.


Agree that businesses are way too limited by government regulation and that the free market should rule that.

My only question about nuke power is, the waste. Isn't there a problem with the waste?

[T Park]

personally out in west texas where theres absolutely nothing and gusts of wind that would stop an 18 wheeler, that would be a good spot for the wind generators.

Also, didn't Ted Kennedy stop a move to have the wind generators put in the ocean outside of mass??

[JoeChalupa]

I feel that government regulations are necessary to avoid further polution. You do realize that without some govt regulations factories would still be dumping all kinds of waste into our rivers and lakes. Call it a necessary evil.

I'd also say nuclear but I also questions and concerns about the waste.

[fyatuk]

personally out in west texas where theres absolutely nothing and gusts of wind that would stop an 18 wheeler, that would be a good spot for the wind generators.

Also, didn't Ted Kennedy stop a move to have the wind generators put in the ocean outside of mass??

There is a massive wind farm in West Texas. I believe it's currently the biggest in the Nation.

Environmentalists don't like wind farms because of concerns (unfounded as far as I can tell) about migratory birds with them.

[101A]

Yes on the Kennedy reference, btw.

[BonnerDynasty]

Isn't nuclear power doing great over in France?

[DarkReign]

#1 - Oil and Coal

#2 - Nuclear

#3 - Pie in the sky, maybe it will maybe it wont, environmentally friendly brown outs

No two ways about it.

[DarkReign]

Shit, I forgot....

#4 - Fission

#5 - Perpetual Motion

[fyatuk]

Shit, I forgot....

#4 - Fission

#5 - Perpetual Motion

I think you meant #4 Fusion. Current nuclear power is Fission.

I love the myth of perpetual motion :smokin

[Spurminator]

Lance Armstrong.

[DarkReign]

I think you meant #4 Fusion. Current nuclear power is Fission.

I love the myth of perpetual motion :smokin

Damnit, I did. Nice catch.

[T Park]

Yeah if the EPA could be reigned in a bit, build some nuculear plants, that could fix things.

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah if the EPA could be reigned in a bit, build some nuculear plants, that could fix things.

Would you have any issues building one in Texas? The EPA is not always the evil one. It was created out of a necessity.

[some_user86]

The answer is nuclear. The waste should be a non-issue as it can be reprocessed for *gasp* more fuel. Unfortunately, Carter made a bone-headed move in the '70s when he said that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel could not be done for fear of the mythical nuclear proliferation boogie-man. Proper security can handle that. Russia is a bigger threat to proliferation than reprocessing from power plants.

If reprocessed, the amount of nuclear waste goes down drastically (to things like old clothes possibly contaminated by radioactive isotopes). These can be handled easily.

[Holt's Cat]

Would you have any issues building one in Texas? The EPA is not always the evil one. It was created out of a necessity.


*cough* (http://www.stpnoc.com/)

[fyatuk]

*cough* (http://www.stpnoc.com/)

Yeah, I thought that was a stupid question since there are currently 4 active reactors in Texas (South Texas and Comanche Peak), and the only current application is for 2 more at South Texas. The South Texas ones are some of the largest commercial reactors in the US...

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Lance Armstrong.The One Nut Wonder!!!!!!!!!

[Wild Cobra]

With what we know works, I say we need more nuclear power plants built. We now have proven safe designs that could never be a "three mile island" or "Chernobal" disaster.

Yes, waste is a concern. However, there are safe ways to store it.

I really though by now we would see some breakthroughs in cold fusion. Looks like that may not be any more viable than burning saltwater is.

It looks like solar panels will come down in price soon enough to make them viable for homeowner use. This will still be a high initial cost, but once there is a 10 year or less payoff, I think we can see such markets thrive for selling them. They will probably not make a home energy self sufficient without devoting more than a simple change in roof looks, but they can dramatically reduce the power a family uses off the grid.

[sabar]

Nuclear fusion is the end-all solution to power. No argument. There is no waste, the fuel is everywhere, and it produces obscene amounts of energy.

The only problem is that we have no way to reproduce the extreme pressures and temperatures that power stars except in hydrogen bombs, in which the reaction is started by a fission bomb. Obviously this isn't an ideal way to get fusion power.

Until we make those advances, civilization will most likely use up all their oil and natural gas and be forced into nuclear fission. Solar/wind/geothermal will supplement it.

I dislike wind. The generators are huge, expensive, ugly, noisy, kill birds, and inefficient. It takes huge tracts of land of wind generators to do what one nuclear reactor can do.

It'll be very interesting to see if the Australians build their massive solar updraft tower.

Anyways, if people would stop wimping out and go all-out on nuclear power we wouldn't need anything from the middle east. A massive percentage of France's energy is nuclear. How many disasters have they had? Zero. I'll take a one in a million chance of a meltdown near where I live over a 100% chance of breathing in soot and carcinogens from coal plants every time I step outside.

I bet more people die from lung cancer in a year from air pollution than from nuclear meltdowns.

[fyatuk]

With what we know works, I say we need more nuclear power plants built. We now have proven safe designs that could never be a "three mile island" or "Chernobal" disaster.

Yes, waste is a concern. However, there are safe ways to store it.

I really though by now we would see some breakthroughs in cold fusion. Looks like that may not be any more viable than burning saltwater is.

It looks like solar panels will come down in price soon enough to make them viable for homeowner use. This will still be a high initial cost, but once there is a 10 year or less payoff, I think we can see such markets thrive for selling them. They will probably not make a home energy self sufficient without devoting more than a simple change in roof looks, but they can dramatically reduce the power a family uses off the grid.

Last year or the year before there was a "breakthrough" in fusion. They managed to create a fusion reaction that sustained itself for like 4 times longer than any previous experiment, or something like that.

Solar panels are a good helper. They aren't usuable in many places, but can drastically reduce grid consumption where they can be used. Some testing has shown that in some places it's even possible for a house to occassionally have excess production that can be stored in batteries or sent onto the grid.

[Wild Cobra]

Some testing has shown that in some places it's even possible for a house to occassionally have excess production that can be stored in batteries or sent onto the grid.
I know this is true. However, with how people normally consume energy, that is the exception. Such houses are more likely to be in desert climates that see little clouds. Other differences could be panels that stand out, and would be considered ugly rather than a pleasing aesthetic change to a home design. Then there is insulation quality and temperature averages.

Where I live, it gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter. I live just above the 45th parallel, so the winter sun is rather weak. Places like mine, it's not practical. Places like New Mexico, Arizona, and places it Texas, the payoff would be better as there are less clouds, and they are lower in latitude. A strong sun in the summer provides good energy for cooling, and it doesn't get as cold in the winter, and the sun is still stronger and lasts more hours than the sun we get in Oregon.

Yes. It's the same sun, but the angle makes a big difference.

[sabar]

Actually in Texas we get massive cloud cover for most of winter. I'd say 3/4ths of the past 60 days have been total or partly cloudy in San Antonio. Now its warming up and back to clear skies.

Anyways, government mandates need to learn their bounds. There are good regulations and bad ones. Good ones are mandates on dumping trash into our drinking water. Bad ones are massive obstacles in nuclear energy. I don't think that the government can solve this, this is a human obstacle. As either oil prices rise or we run out of fuel to burn, energy corporations should get incentive to invest in nuclear/solar power as they become more cost effective than oil.

Here's a good question. Is it possible for government regulations to make nuclear cheaper than coal/oil? I don't think so without resorting to flat out bans, massive subsidies, or price-fixing. I just think it's something that has to solve itself. The invisible hand of the free market should draw energy corporations into alternatives to oil as prices rise and supply falls.

Fusion is really the holy grail.
We just have to be patient to be able to sustain reactions. Experiments have generated 15mW for less than a second,obviously, totally useless so far. A new research plant was opened a few years ago in the states, hopefully that sees some advances.

[Holt's Cat]

Actually in Texas we get massive cloud cover for most of winter. I'd say 3/4ths of the past 60 days have been total or partly cloudy in San Antonio. Now its warming up and back to clear skies.

Anyways, government mandates need to learn their bounds. There are good regulations and bad ones. Good ones are mandates on dumping trash into our drinking water.

Right, protecting property rights, especially public property.



Bad ones are massive obstacles in nuclear energy. I don't think that the government can solve this, this is a human obstacle. As either oil prices rise or we run out of fuel to burn, energy corporations should get incentive to invest in nuclear/solar power as they become more cost effective than oil.

Here's a good question. Is it possible for government regulations to make nuclear cheaper than coal/oil? I don't think so without resorting to flat out bans, massive subsidies, or price-fixing. I just think it's something that has to solve itself. The invisible hand of the free market should draw energy corporations into alternatives to oil as prices rise and supply falls.

Fusion is really the holy grail.
We just have to be patient to be able to sustain reactions. Experiments have generated 15mW for less than a second,obviously, totally useless so far. A new research plant was opened a few years ago in the states, hopefully that sees some advances.

The way government can assist is to not provide benefits to one particular industry. If you grandfather in a coal-fired power plant from certain clean air regulations so a utility doesn't have to cover the true cost of its production then that's a noncompetitive benefit and one that encourages greater investment in 'old' unclean technologies.

I agree with you, if the government would create an open playing field and get out of the way of the market we could see cleaner power generation coming online earlier.

[fyatuk]

Here's a good question. Is it possible for government regulations to make nuclear cheaper than coal/oil? I don't think so without resorting to flat out bans, massive subsidies, or price-fixing. I just think it's something that has to solve itself. The invisible hand of the free market should draw energy corporations into alternatives to oil as prices rise and supply falls.


Nuclear is cheaper than oil/coal in the long run. It's the plant construction cost that kills it. Unless you want to go from highly regulating and restricting construction of nuclear plants to subsidizing them, it won't really happen until coal prices rise significantly, which is highly unlikely any time soon, or the plants get cheaper to build, which won't happen until people start building some.

[boutons_]

Coal needs to be killed, and the lie of "clean coal" killed along with it.

(If the price and efficient of building a "clean coal" generation plant were totally factored in, it wouldn't be so different from the cost of building a nuclear station, but would still have the disastrous impact, see Alberta and W. Virginia surface mining and water destroyed.)

Electrical power must come from nuclear, with assists from wind and solar. The energy market needs total federal re-regulation to avoid Enrons, etc. The private equity people are fucking up the energy market, eg, the electricity prices in Houston. Electricty is a "human right" like health care so for-profit elecricity and management must stop.

Transport fuel will continue to be from oil but big reduction in demand with electric hybrids, compressed air, whatever.

corn-ethanol is a $50B subsidy bad joke, but what do you expect from dubya other than reverse-Midas disasters.

[smeagol]

Coal needs to be killed, and the lie of "clean coal" killed along with it.

(If the price and efficient of building a "clean coal" generation plant were totally factored in, it wouldn't be so different from the cost of building a nuclear station, but would still have the disastrous impact, see Alberta and W. Virginia surface mining and water destroyed.)

Electrical power must come from nuclear, with assists from wind and solar. The energy market needs total federal re-regulation to avoid Enrons, etc. The private equity people are fucking up the energy market, eg, the electricity prices in Houston. Electricty is a "human right" like health care so for-profit elecricity and management must stop.

Transport fuel will continue to be from oil but big reduction in demand with electric hybrids, compressed air, whatever.

corn-ethanol is a $50B subsidy bad joke, but what do you expect from dubya other than reverse-Midas disasters.

Not sure who's political views scare me more: your's, or whottt's

[Wild Cobra]

Actually in Texas we get massive cloud cover for most of winter. I'd say 3/4ths of the past 60 days have been total or partly cloudy in San Antonio. Now its warming up and back to clear skies.
I know. Notice I said "parts of Texas?"

Ooops... I didn't, but that's what I meant. I said "places it Texas" which should have been "some places in Texas."


Anyways, government mandates need to learn their bounds. There are good regulations and bad ones. Good ones are mandates on dumping trash into our drinking water. Bad ones are massive obstacles in nuclear energy. I don't think that the government can solve this, this is a human obstacle. As either oil prices rise or we run out of fuel to burn, energy corporations should get incentive to invest in nuclear/solar power as they become more cost effective than oil.
The only incentive they need is for the regulations being lifted or lessened that hamper their abilities to build them.


Here's a good question. Is it possible for government regulations to make nuclear cheaper than coal/oil? I don't think so without resorting to flat out bans, massive subsidies, or price-fixing. I just think it's something that has to solve itself. The invisible hand of the free market should draw energy corporations into alternatives to oil as prices rise and supply falls.
Clean burning coal is not cheap. Clean nuclear power is in the long haul. As for solar... I don't see it viable for any large scale. I could be wrong, but where ever you place a solar panel, you shade the landscape. I see them best used only on existing building, or maybe in the desert. Large blocks of shade in these regions would change the ecosystem of a desert. Probably for the best, but some whacko environmentalist I'm sure would say otherwise.


Fusion is really the holy grail.
We just have to be patient to be able to sustain reactions. Experiments have generated 15mW for less than a second,obviously, totally useless so far. A new research plant was opened a few years ago in the states, hopefully that sees some advances.

I've heard of better results from that from a power perspective, but it was in generated heat rather than electricity. I didn't hear of any attempt to generate power from this experiment. It would be great for efficient heating. You put power in for the fusion reaction, and it in turn generates more heat than the power put in.