this is serious stuff

[alenhard]

well, I hope you figure out how to run your "ballsy" car on soybeans...

Too late- someone already did. Or at least he got close. I saw a documentary of this dude at the Banff Film Festival. He's got an unsual way of seeing things.

http://www.grassolean.com/

(his truck runs on used french fry grease and smells like a McDonald's on wheels)

[BJ_M]

Nuclear Fission you have infinite amount of material -- the whole universe in fact and it's self sustaining to the most part (like your sun)

I meant in a practical sense. That is, there's only so much plutonium, uranium, etc.

i meant you got fission and fusion mixed up ...

there is no end of fission material unless all mater in universe goes away ...

fusion material can run out ...... though half life can be several 1000's of years , even millions ..... plus you can change one type of fusion material into another ---

big diff between the two ...

fission reaction is what is known as clean power -- only problem is no one can do it on a sustainable level ....

[dcsos]

Pretty soon we can just get those healthnuts who won't be able to run outside anymore (what with the increasing polution from fossil fuels)
Into our facilities and onto our energy generating treadmills!..
These folk could produce a lot from their plain ol' nervous gym-bound activity..

We would harness this PEOPLE ENERGY and sell it back to you!

No energy problems will ensue however if we put some money into SOLAR BATTERIES..instead of COMBUSTION ENGINES

[Cobra]

Not a problem, we still have nuclear fission...

If you use a fast breeder reactor, depleted uranium can be placed around the outside of the core and stray neutrons will replenish the nucleus of the atoms making up the uranium to produce the extremely rich fuel, plutomium. Using this process, more fuel is produced than is consumed. It's weird, but true.

It's clean and green. To those worried about another Chernobyl, it is a concern. We should learn from it and not shy away from it. Is pumping out noxious pollutants from coal, gas and oil stations not dangerous?!

Because of this scare, the governments haven't allowed nuclear power to expand as it should. Dounreay was a fast breeder. It was fully functional and had been operating safely for years. They shut it down.

Fusion is a better way of doing things. Pure water as a waste? Cool!

Fast breeder info: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html
Another info page: http://www.jnc.go.jp/jncweb/02r-d/fast.html

Having said all this, if the government had ploughed in as much money into wave power (renewable) as they did for nuclear power, I'm sure that would have been sorted years ago.

Just now, though, fast breeder nuclear is the way to go.

Cobra

[luvvbuzz]

Here is a web site for all the ostrich heads still buried in the sand regarding peak oil and its implications. The data has been around for 40 yrs or better regarding the amount of extractable oil.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html

The lenght of time is debatable, but the one aspect that is not is that peak oil is past and we are on the downward slope. No scientist has stated with fact that it is an infinite resource.

http://dieoff.org/

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/jf04/jf04cavallo.html

Have you prepared for the future? Will fiat currencies prevail in those times?

i remember reading in 1994 that fossil fuel supplies would only last another 50 years at the current rate of consumption. now 10 years on that estimated time has more than halfed to 20 years of fossil fuel left, so obviously the rate of consumption in the last 10 years has shot up.

[BJ_M]

all the depleted uranium is being used up for tank bodies and shells ...

[fritzi93]

No new fission plant construction has been started in the U.S. since Three Mile Island. A couple were completed afterwards, I believe. Just the political reality. Wait for the old flower child age group to die off. It will then become politically possible to reconsider nuclear power.

[BobV]

Not that I'm a big advocate of the French however, They do make very good wine, cheese, and nuclear reactors. They came up with One Good design and then perfected it. Unlike in the US where every time they built a reactor they started with a new design. I say speak to them, if they will still talk to us.

[Capmaster]

Not a problem, we still have nuclear fission...

If you use a fast breeder reactor, depleted uranium can be placed around the outside of the core and stray neutrons will replenish the nucleus of the atoms making up the uranium to produce the extremely rich fuel, plutomium. Using this process, more fuel is produced than is consumed. It's weird, but true.

It's clean and green. To those worried about another Chernobyl, it is a concern. We should learn from it and not shy away from it. Is pumping out noxious pollutants from coal, gas and oil stations not dangerous?!

Because of this scare, the governments haven't allowed nuclear power to expand as it should. Dounreay was a fast breeder. It was fully functional and had been operating safely for years. They shut it down.

Fusion is a better way of doing things. Pure water as a waste? Cool!

Fast breeder info: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html
Another info page: http://www.jnc.go.jp/jncweb/02r-d/fast.html

Having said all this, if the government had ploughed in as much money into wave power (renewable) as they did for nuclear power, I'm sure that would have been sorted years ago.

Just now, though, fast breeder nuclear is the way to go.

Cobra

A fast breeder reactor does produce more fission fuel than it consumes. An ideal situation.

But fusion fuel is not obtained solely from water. One of the two key ingredients - deuterium - is an isotope of hydrogen and is present in sea water. The other ingredient - tritium - is also an isotope of hydrogen and is radioactive. It is not found in sea water, but is made in a reactor and also is found in nature as a result of natural decay. The two hydrogen isotopes are fused together in a nuclear weapon to form helium (the next-heaviest element after H), neutrons, prompt radiation, various by-products, and a shit-load of energy. That's why it's called a "hydrogen" bomb ...from these two isotopes.

The problem with fusion is that we aren't close to harnessing it on a small scale. There have been high-profile programs like the laser inertial confinement fusion effort at Los Alamos Labs, the Tokamak magnetic confinement effort at various labs in the states and abroad, and the particle beam fusion effort at Sandia Labs. All these efforts have failed because of fuel pre-heating, timing and focusing issues, and are a long way off. Currently, fission is our only nuclear source of energy that could be used to generate electricity. Fortunately it's the safest method (despite what the doomsayers think) that we currently have on a large enough scale, and it doesn't deplete the fossil fuels.

[Capmaster]

Not that I'm a big advocate of the French however, They do make very good wine, cheese, and nuclear reactors. They came up with One Good design and then perfected it. Unlike in the US where every time they built a reactor they started with a new design. I say speak to them, if they will still talk to us.

The US uses a new design every time they build a reactor? Really? And what do you base this on? Here is a link which addresses this:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

and here is just one sentence from this document:
The Westinghouse AP-1000, scaled-up from the AP-600, has now been submitted to the NRC for full design certification
and that's just one case I found in about a minute. If you do your research you'll find that in the interest of safety the designs are always being improved upon. If they weren't we'd still be using a graphite-moderated design like Chernobyl which we did some early experiments on in the '30s. Designs that are approved by the NRC are always core designs that have a proven track record.

And I agree we ought to investigate using the French to help generate electricity ....as FUEL They ought to have enough alcohol in their bodies and armpit and leg hair on their women to be worth more than a few BTUs when ignited properly

[BobV]

The US uses a new design every time they build a reactor? Really? And what do you base this on?

ok I'll agree that "every time" was over the top, however I do stand by the bases of my statement. Its due to the fact that building a reactor in the US is a local or state funded project and there tends to be little incentive for cooperation between projects or states. Where as in France they werer built as national projects.

[Capmaster]

The US uses a new design every time they build a reactor? Really? And what do you base this on?

ok I'll agree that "every time" was over the top, however I do stand by the bases of my statement. Its due to the fact that building a reactor in the US is a local or state funded project and there tends to be little incentive for cooperation between projects or states. Where as in France they werer built as national projects.

That's cool.
I think "federalizing" nuclear energy would be an interesting concept. Maybe have the feds subsidize the industry and freeze fuel prices and electricity prices? I think it's a mistake to have the infrastructure of the country dependent on a for-profit corporation. Look at all the abuse and fraud we've seen so far ...not that the feds are any more honest ...they're just scrutinized much more heavily than any corporation and have to account for every penny.

[pacmania_2001]

I think global warming and the offshoot of that, fuel consumption is going to be taken alot more seriously in the next couple of years by the United States if a certain political figure doesn't get re-elected.

Also the report by the Pentagon would have opened a few eyes to the seriousness of the situation.

[racerxnet]

"Look at all the abuse and fraud we've seen so far ...not that the feds are any more honest ...they're just scrutinized much more heavily than any corporation and have to account for every penny."

This could not be further from the truth. The federal government may be watched upon by various groups and agencies, but the accountability of where, when, and how much has been spent is a laughing stock of the world. We are the welfare nation the world over with a combined deficit of roughly 51 Trillion dollars (7 trillion for those who can't add). I only have to look back to the ongoing case against the federal government by the Indians to see the complete and intentional mismanagement of the monies owed to them. Of course the government can not account how much they are owed.

[Capmaster]

"Look at all the abuse and fraud we've seen so far ...not that the feds are any more honest ...they're just scrutinized much more heavily than any corporation and have to account for every penny."

This could not be further from the truth. The federal government may be watched upon by various groups and agencies, but the accountability of where, when, and how much has been spent is a laughing stock of the world. We are the welfare nation the world over with a combined deficit of roughly 51 Trillion dollars (7 trillion for those who can't add). I only have to look back to the ongoing case against the federal government by the Indians to see the complete and intentional mismanagement of the monies owed to them. Of course the government can not account how much they are owed.

I suppose the private sector is better. Such moral beacons as Enron and Worldcom can lead the way to cheap energy :P

[BobV]

I suppose the private sector is better. Such moral beacons as Enron and Worldcom can lead the way to cheap energy :P

But Capmaster, you seem to be forgetting Big Government is Big Business... just without a product.

(bob an equal oppertunity skeptic)

[docrhody]

The oil supply that is running out is the middle east only. North America has large quantities of oil, unfortunately, many people prefer not to dot the landscape with drilling rigs (or wind farms for that matter). Even drilling on the Northern shore of Alaska, where there is only life 2 months out of the year is protested. So on this matter we wait until Arab oil is exhausted then we drill here. Without gas the greenie weenies can't drive to the protest.

We have had artificial oil since WW2, Cars can run on ethanol but, it is incredibly flammable and tends to explode. Gasoline well burn but must be aerosolized to explode.

Electricity can run your whole house and mass transit, so start embracing Nuclear power or build a lot of Hoover Damns.

Oil is used in much more than just fuel!

BTW, you don't need electricity for running water and plumbing, just a hand pump and a tank in the attic.

[Capmaster]

I suppose the private sector is better. Such moral beacons as Enron and Worldcom can lead the way to cheap energy :P

But Capmaster, you seem to be forgetting Big Government is Big Business... just without a product.

(bob an equal oppertunity skeptic)

Good point. Can we choose "none of the above?"

[racerxnet]

"docrhody
Posted: Mar 09, 2004 10:30
The oil supply that is running out is the middle east only. North America has large quantities of oil, unfortunately, many people prefer not to dot the landscape with drilling rigs (or wind farms for that matter). Even drilling on the Northern shore of Alaska, where there is only life 2 months out of the year is protested. So on this matter we wait until Arab oil is exhausted then we drill here. Without gas the greenie weenies can't drive to the protest. "

Show me the facts to back your claim, or is it based on your own ignorance. Ethanol is an alternative , but consumes more energy to produce than oil. It is not a viable solution or alternative to our needs and infrastructure.

[Cobra]

Capmaster,

Thanks for the info on fusion - it's interesting stuff.

It is definitely time we bit the bullet and got nuclear power in to keep us going and kill off emissions, perhaps building them in such a way that they can be upgraded to better forms of power such as fusion with less expense and time than building a whole new plant.

Anyways,

Cobra

[Capmaster]

Capmaster,

Thanks for the info on fusion - it's interesting stuff.

It is definitely time we bit the bullet and got nuclear power in to keep us going and kill off emissions, perhaps building them in such a way that they can be upgraded to better forms of power such as fusion with less expense and time than building a whole new plant.

Anyways,

Cobra

NP. The only emissions a nuclear plant gives off is steam and heat. The industry has an enviable safety record when you consider the harm done by, say, our worst accident - Three Mile Island. Heck, Ted Kennedy killed more people at Chappaquiddick than TMI did Compare it to the fossil fuel alternatives, with coal miners getting black lung disease, people dying in oil well accidents and fires, and all the air pollution. People need to shed their superstitious fear of nuclear energy as this mysterious, evil force and embrace it. And forget about making comparisons with Chernobyl because that reactor would have never passed our safety standards. That was an old, primitive design that was unsafe. That's why we never utilized it in this country.

Heck - you could build a car with a lifetime fuel source consisting of a polonium pellet encased in a stainless steel block. No chance of any accident ever splitting the fuel block and releasing the radioactive material, and the stainless steel absorbs any ionizing radiation so nothing escapes. The car would have an inexhaustable heat source which you could utilize to make a steam engine. Think of it - buy a car and never have to fuel it up aside from filling it with water But we all know why it was never implemented ......Chevron and Shell and BP, oh my!

[racerxnet]

Do you have any CAD files for these types of cars? Any articles on this concept and its practical applications? HMMM. Millions of these radioactive devices scurrying around without any fear of radioactive laekage in an accident, all based on your statement of how safe it would be. VERY REASSURING! SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND to boot.

[Capmaster]

Do you have any CAD files for these types of cars? Any articles on this concept and its practical applications? HMMM. Millions of these radioactive devices scurrying around without any fear of radioactive laekage in an accident, all based on your statement of how safe it would be. VERY REASSURING! SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND to boot.

I don't have any cad files but I have seen survivability data on various materials and an 8 inch cube of solid 304 stainless is virtually indestructible for any sort of transportation accident. It'll survive an accident scenario with an F4 flying into a reinforced concrete block at mach 1.1. Certainly a mechanical environments envelope that includes any worst-case scenario it's likely to ever see in ground transportation. But it's precisely attitudes like your uninformed irrational fear of radioactive materials that keeps us hobbled in implementing better ways of generating electricity and getting around :P Thanks for making my point for me It's just a good thing that your type of thinking didn't prevail when someone proposed that flying machines become a common conveyance. I can see it now - "Millions of these flying contraptions buzzing over our heads without any fear of falling out of the sky all based on your statement that they're safe. VERY REASSURING!" Git.

All the data on materials survivability is out there in the public domain. Just look under reactor vessel survivability studies and you'll find it. Plus, if you have a calculator and know the tensile, shear and compressive strength of 304 you can get an idea of how unlikely it is that one would ever rupture.

[racerxnet]

I think you made the best case for all of us concerning your position, in that we do not have any of these best case senario cars in existance. And probably never will. Your technical prowness in the ability of 304 stainless to sheild one from an accident are far from conclusive in this case.

My father is the owner of a medium sized machine shop specializing in the aerospace industry. I have many years in working with various metals and plastics. Your position is unconvincing at best. My position regarding the discussion is what is PROVEN safe. Not simple rhetoric on this site. None the less your position is baseless and without merit at the present time. Show me the facts.

[BJ_M]

The only emissions a nuclear plant gives off is steam and heat

well -- don't forget the TONs of spent fuel rods and cooling water and contaminated equipment and supplies .. a HUGE amount ..

electricity must be used as it is produced .. there is no storage .... you cant "make more" than what is required ...

therfore - power grids have to be able to add and subtract on a ongoing bases ... Nuclear plants have a little more problem to do this ...

also -- Nuclear plants are very costly to build and also VERY costly to maintain (as the radiation breaks down pretty well everything) much much faster than normal ...

mining the fuel also is power intensive and costly. and the usa doesnt have a huge amount of the raw material.

not saying they are not good -- but they are not (yet) god's gift to mankind as free and cheap power ... but YES , i would also like to see this source improved upon - but on a almost global effort , as a proper plant is a HUGE amount of money (canada has plenty of thse dogs also)

nothing is perfect ....

geo vents, wind , tidal , solar, water -- all of these are good , but also always have drawbacks also ...

[indolikaa]

Oh good. A debate on energy policy.


Let me finish wiping my ass with the latest issue of 'Facism presented by the FTW' and I'll join the debate.

[housepig]

Without gas the greenie weenies can't drive to the protest.

<cough>*bicycle!*</cough>

[indolikaa]

Ah! A good wipe. Ran out of the FTW stuff so I had to call in The Bulletin reserve material.

OK, here's my take on the subject.

Back in 1984, we were told in middle school that the world would run out of oil in 20 years. It is now 2004, and the world has not run out of oil.

Back in 1988, Greenpeace came to my high school and told us all that we were killing Mother Earth by driving our cars instead of taking public transportation. They also said, 'we have less than 20 years of oil left in the Middle East.' They left the assembly and drove off in a Chevy Suburban that smoked worse than my 6th grade science teacher. The irony was not lost on many would-be voters that day, I can tell you. And last I checked, the Middle East still has more than 2 years of oil left as of today.

Back in 1992, my Anthropology professor (that's right, an Anthropology professor) predicted there would be a mass shortage of crude oil by the year 2000. It is now 2004, and the dead dinosaurs are still producing the black bubbly stuff.


Didn't the Russians announce last year that American and British geologists had discovered a petroleum reserve near Tyumen that would, after being adjusted for 'inflation' usage, produce at least 95-110 years of oil?

You want to curb oil consumption? Selling gas for $1.79 a gallon isn't going to do that. If you can afford a pimp-daddy Yukon with all the trimmings, gas is the last financial concern you're going to have.

[BJ_M]

oil didnt come from dinosaurs

other than that ---you are right ... so how do you get people to use less gas/oil/etc when its so cheap in usa ?

where in the world its expensive (gas) - they drive less fuel hungry cars (fact), and so forth .. yes there will be always a minority that can afford to pay anything and the about the price of oil - they could care less...

[indolikaa]

Now wait a minute. According to the aforementioned anthropology professor, dinosaurs 'devolved' (see decayed) into oil. I thought it was all the plant material from a few geological periods prior, but he is a college professor!

You see why I bring that experience up, don't you?

We had ourselves a little pipeline incident in Arizona last year. The pipeline between Tucson and Phoenix broke. Unleaded Plus and Premium were in very short supply for a short time. Gas went up to as high as $4 per gallon. Consumption only declined because there wasn't enough gas available, not because people wouldn't buy the stuff.

Now we here in the Snowflake area get our gasoline from a refinery in Gallup, NM. Which, of course, had nothing to do with the pipeline problem. You can bet your sweet ass our gas prices went up anyway. Why? Because they can. Because Arizona does not have any price gouging laws.

Yeah, Governor Napolitano got a real kick out of learning there was nothing she could do about the people who were sticking it to the consumer. Arizona is controlled by a Republican-dominated legislature. Price gouging good for the fat cats.

You know what I learned from that incident? People will pay up to $5 per gallon to drive their gas-guzzling SUVs. They'll even get into fistfights to buy the product.

The only solution to the problem is to raise the EPA standards a few notches and force the auto manufacturers to get on the bandwagon. Like that's going to happen...