Crazy_Nate Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Since there has a decent amount of energy-related discussion in other threads, let's discuss it here. Guidelines: Keep it related to energy - electricity, fuels, transportation, efficiency, waste, related pollution. It's an important part of everyday life. Think. Post. No personal attacks. I'll start. Nuclear power from fission is a finite resource. I do not believe it is a long term solution to energy production. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdingeling Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Nuclear may not be a long term solution, but it's a bloody long short term one! As for cars, I'll stick with Diesel. A Toyota Prius puts out 104g of CO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverfox Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Interesting - how come you believe that it will not be a long-term solution? Is it due to the resource, or the disposal of waste? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Nate Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 If I had to choose between coal and nuke, I'd choose nuke. Coal is simply disgusting, both in the strip mining, and in the burning in power plants. Unfortunately, the up-front costs for a nuclear power plant far exceed those of the coal plants (just look at China - they were building two per week back in 2007). I'm quite a fan of diesel myself. Unfortunately, petro diesel is sourced overseas - questionable energy independence if you ask me... I'd like to help out by buying biodiesel (even at a slight cost premium), however, in many areas it isn't available. Most of the biodiesel that I've bought seems to be processed waste vegetable oil (fryer grease), however, in some areas of the US, the primary source is soybeans. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to compete with food crops, but, the same is true for ethanol from corn. Interestingly enough, there has been a lot of research put into algal biodiesel. I only wonder when it will be widely available (and, of course, the fuel costs). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Nate Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Interesting - how come you believe that it will not be a long-term solution? Is it due to the resource, or the disposal of waste? Disposal of the waste will be an issue, but, as long as it's handled safely and correctly processed, I don't mind. If it leaches into the ground water...well, then I'll have a problem with it. I say not a long term solution from a sort of mass-conservation approach. Like coal and oil, there is only a fixed amount of resource (the amount of oil seems to be still open to debate by some people). How long have we got? Well, honestly, I don't know. I'd much rather see 'renewables' that won't have that issue. Ever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverfox Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 If I had to choose between coal and nuke, I'd choose nuke. Coal is simply disgusting, both in the strip mining, and in the burning in power plants. Unfortunately, the up-front costs for a nuclear power plant far exceed those of the coal plants (just look at China - they were building two per week back in 2007). I'm quite a fan of diesel myself. Unfortunately, petro diesel is sourced overseas - questionable energy independence if you ask me... I'd like to help out by buying biodiesel (even at a slight cost premium), however, in many areas it isn't available. Most of the biodiesel that I've bought seems to be processed waste vegetable oil (fryer grease), however, in some areas of the US, the primary source is soybeans. I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to compete with food crops, but, the same is true for ethanol from corn. Interestingly enough, there has been a lot of research put into algal biodiesel. I only wonder when it will be widely available (and, of course, the fuel costs). Biodiesel works, but the sheer volumes required to support for example, the US economy, just isn't feasible. There are plenty of discussions into how one's carbon footprint isn't reduced as dramatically as expected by using biodiesel. I for one, am unconvinced. Diesels emit less CO2 than gasoline cars, but their particulate emissions are pretty poor. Particulate filters help, but they have a way to go yet. Yes, the nuclear energy costs of setting up are high indeed - massively so. But for a clean energy, we have to face facts that there will be a hefty price tag involved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Nate Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Ah, yes. Particulate emissions. Where I've come to differentiate those from other pollutants like NOX or SOX, is that they usually end up falling to the ground, and not having questionable complications in the upper atmosphere. An interesting sidenote: the ideal thermodynamic process involving the combustion of gasoline and oxygen provides no NOX byproducts. There simply isn't nitrogen in gasoline. Where it comes from is the interaction of the N2 in the air, with gasoline at non-optimum combustion conditions and temperatures. I'd bet $5 that you could cheat on NOX emissions testing by running a gasoline car with a oxygen tank attached to the intake (in place of the air cleaner / etc). Only, the people testing would really be confused as to why you have a tank and lines in your engine compartment. I do agree, I don't think biodiesel is a 100% solution, but, it may be an intermediate step to wean this country off of foreign oil. From a carbon neutral mindset - biodiesel from some type of process (plant or algae) that uses airborne carbon in the production of fuel - would seem to be superior to simply mining the depths of the planet for a fossil fuel that has been hidden away for millions of years. I tend to arrange my energy mindset into something like this: Clean renewables > renewables > clean non-renewables (ie nuclear) > dirty non-renewables (coal) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 IMO the future of energy, once we get past the special interest stranglehold on oil, is decentralized production, mainly at the household level. That pretty much means solar. The sooner the better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Smith Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 As for cars, I'll stick with Diesel. A Toyota Prius puts out 104g of CO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_Nate Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Hey Phil. I'm with you 100% on the solar. Only, I tend to lump wind in with solar. Three main categories in my head - direct conversion, solar thermal and wind (solar driven byproduct) Decentralization has a nice added touch of additional energy security - with decent storage capacity at the household level there will be both additional energy awareness (production and consumption) and having locally produced power. If the grid goes down, you can still have ample power. Ah, that'd be nice In terms of housing, I prioritize this way: insulate & reduce consumption, then, passive solar (it's so easy), then alternative power production (PV array, 10 kW wind turbine, etc). I'm not sure where I'd lump things like geothermal - I guess it really depends on the application. In terms of enforcing something like this (or bringing about improved standards), insulation standards and appliance (or other household device) power consumption would seem to be the place to start. Unfortunately, the up front cost seems to be pretty deterrent - unfortunate, because the long term savings are astounding. Ok, enough of me talking. Let's shift it a little to electric vehicles. It seems like there's some obvious interest there As battery technology becomes better and better, the promise of having electric vehicles readily available seems to be closer and closer to today. What are people's opinions on the transition to an electric based transportation system? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverfox Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Ok, enough of me talking. Let's shift it a little to electric vehicles. It seems like there's some obvious interest there As battery technology becomes better and better, the promise of having electric vehicles readily available seems to be closer and closer to today. What are people's opinions on the transition to an electric based transportation system (and noticeably, the transition to)? Battery disposal is my biggest concern and why I am not convinced as to the viability of battery operated vehicles. Not to mention the problems of say, a car crash; spilling gasoline is one thing, but spilling battery contents (I'm assuming more than the standard Lithium Ion content here) would be an issue I would have thought. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCC10281982B Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 Natural gas sounds like an interesting idea but has hurdles to overcome before it can be use mainstream, like all alternative fuels. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now