Oil/Gas is irrelevant.

You'd have a bad reputation too, if you melted down, killed people, and poisoned a big chunk of Russian real estate for centuries to come.

My faith in our ability to adequately control and contain a chain reaction within a nuclear pile was shaken in '79 with Three Mile Island and shattered in '86 with Chernobyl. I don't see anything in the next generation of reactors that would restore that faith.

I remain convinced that fission power is a messy footnote in the history of energy policy.

Hmmm, cite? That sounds pretty cool, I did not know that.

You are probably right about the social solutions, but can you name anything complex that has been well taken care of except by a free market system? At some point of complexity our brains are no longer capable of governing except via free market evolution.

And, I don't think free market evolution and nuclear power mix very well..

Yeah, I forgot about coal technology myself.

And the eeeeevil Bush administration is supporting it!

But that GE Coal energy commercial sure is hot!

Let's not forget the biggest reason: the ENVIRONMENT. I agree that in the short-term, it may help from a national security (though cutting our handouts to Israel would probably be infinately more effective in that arena) and will certainly lessen the financial blow when we do, eventually, run out of oil or it becomes so cost prohibitive noone will use it.

Both of those are much easier to rectify than ozone holes, global warming, etc., and as such the environment should be listed as numero uno - not left off the list.

If you're trying to twist a positive thing into a negative... um... good job?

Eh, I don't know about that. Pebble-bed reactors are looking awfully nice as a means of providing cheap source of abundant power until we can get the costs of a totally renewable, non-polluting, safe power supply online.

Yes, there is still damage done by sourcing the materials and storing them once used - but it is cleaner than coal.

Wired had a pretty good article about these reactors - seems like China is going to be building some soon.

What we need is a realistic energy policy that preserves the environment, produces far less pollutants, keeps the consumer costs low and moves us in the direction of (what should be) our ultimate goal: non-polluting, renewable energy.

Well, Chernobyl was a piece of shit Russian reactor. (Come on, look at their space program, everyone knows they cut corners on safety in order to compete...and that was technology from 20 years ago.)

Three Mile...well that technology had to be older than what, 25, 30+ years at least? Hell, computers could barely do shit back then.



I haven't forgotten the environmental benefit of getting off oil. My comment was addressing the major reasons that the administration is supporting this. The administration supports it because of the environmental benefits too, but I figured most people here won't believe that reason. But for national security reasons, even a Bush hater can believe that.

They probably wouldn't believe that becuase it is contradictory to the administrations support of expanded drilling in Alaska and thier desire to open up areas off the CA coast for drilling -- which will have negative and long-lasting effects in those environments.

The major problem with alternitive fuels and energy sources is .. price. Bottom line. Even at $2 a gallon, gasoline is still cheaper than bottled water. Then again there is scale to consider, any bioderrived fuel source is just not going to be able to supply in sufficient quantities to be of much use without causing mass starvation, deforestation, etc.

Fission reactors have come a long way since the seventies. Like it or not nuclear power in in your future simply because China is about to explode in the production of nuclear dirrived energy. Because of their population, China is projected to need 300 gigawatts of nuclear power in the coming years which is just shy of the 350 gigawatts produced today worldwide..

The future of nuclear power is in the "pebble bed" reactor that is so safe, you can simply walk away from it. No giant containment domes, no China Sydrome, no meltdowns. If it breaks, it simply stops working and you have all thime you need to fix the problem. It's not theory as the Chinese have already done it on a small scale and intend to do it again on a large scale for a world wide demonstration in September. You can read the Wired article here http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html?pg=1&topic=china&topic_set=

Trust me, once the idea catches on and is proven economical and reasonably safe, there will be no stopping it.

Point taken, but those environmental effects aren't in the same league as the bigger issue of overall air pollution and global pollution. I lean more against doing those two things more than towards doing them, but ONLY because I don't think it'll make a big difference. If we knew CA's coast or Alaska had the potential to be another Saudi Arabia, to the point that we could just say "screw you" to mideast oil, I'd definitely be for it, as long as there's good safety regulations to avoid accidents.

Exactly...we really need to think of the environment I think this is a real issue and needs to be thought out the sooner the better for all. With are technology and getting people to keep up with trying to go with change will help as well I think.

Agreed - to a point.

What really gets me about the administration is that instead of supporting additional drilling (such as in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge) they should be forcing Detriot to increase the average fuel economy of thier product line. This route is, for obvious reasons, not favorable because of the added costs to new vehicles and lessening demand through improved economy.

By raising the efficiency a mere 3mpg - we would save over a million barrels of oil per day. This is about 5 times the amount we are expected to extract from ANWR.

If the average fuel consumption was set at 32mpg, the amount of oil we would save equals that which we import from the Persian Gulf.

The administration should rethink the CAFE mandates and start by forcing Detroit to increase avg. mpg for both light trucks and cars. The technology is available and cheap, this is not the 70's where fuel efficient meant you were stuck buying a slow, tiny deathtrap.

This administration should show some serious leadership in this arena by tackling Detroit first before it opens up ANWR for drilling.

I wouldn't mind small steps like that, but the BA (Bush admin, tired of typing it) isn't willing to do anything they feel would damage the economy. Whether they are right or not, I don't know, specifics like this are debatable, but at least some steps are being taken...contrary to what many would have us believe.

An argument could be made that if we don't take steps to curb our appetite for oil, we would still be headed for damage to our economy. We cannot sustain our rate of use - period.

Personally, I'm amazed that those CEO's at GM, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler are sitting there twidling thier million dollar thumbs while the European and Japanese makers are making great strides in engine efficiency. Gee - I wonder who'll be late to the party, yet again.
I feel that we should focus on our efficiency and improve that before we decide to scar the planet looking for more oil that is, at best, a very, very temporary fix. The damage done to those environments, however, is not temporary. Our kids will thank us though.

Chernobyl was another political problem. An "ancient" design, aging, badly constructed and improperly maintained. Which demonstrates my point.



Quick cite from DOE: www.fe.doe.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/

DOE claims that coal gasification is one of the best ways to produce hydrogen for automobiles and fuel cells.

My original post was not "against" the free market system. I don't think nationalization is the answer. But I do think that a mixed system is probably the only workable solution. The case of French nuclear power is interesting, and makes a good comparison to the American approach. But the French have their own (serious) problems.

That Wired article about pebble bed reactors does an excellent job of glossing over the problems. The "incident" in Hamm-Uentrop, Germany with a pebble bed reactor released significant radioactivity - hardly a "walk-away" scenario. The lack of a containment vessel with the new reactors may make them cheaper and more modular, but it also means that when something does go wrong, there's no last line of defense - that leaps over the line of confidence to sheer arrogant recklessness. Pebble beds are also highly dependent on exacting standards for manufacturing the pebbles, and the spent pebbles are a huge waste-disposal nightmare, taking up more volume than standard fuels. Graphite is a big material in both the pebbles and other structures, and graphite is flammable in air (which happens to be the backup coolant if the pressurized helium is lost).

There are safety advantages of pebble bed designs over traditional light-water reactors, but not so much that I'd sleep easy with one in my backyard.

Some nuclear advocates claim that pebble bed reactors are safe enough to use as power sources for vehicles. This reinforces my belief that some nuclear advocates would benefit from sunshine, fresh air, and intensive therapy.

Less polluting than what? Light-water reactors, maybe. The spent fuel is bulkier in a pebble bed, but less radioactive (still dangerous, just not as dangerous). It also doesn't have the same thermal pollution profile.

Less polluting than coal/petroleum? Unquestionably. If we can stomach the possibility of an occasional catastrophe, even factoring Chernobyl-scale events, nuclear still wins that calculation. I'm just not sure I have the stomach to make that determination.

Less polluting than wind/solar/geothermal/biofuels/coal gassification? Even if you factor in manufacturing outputs, they all beat nuclear.

I don't know. If pebble beds run safely in China for a couple of decades, I might change my mind. I just don't want to be a guinea pig. Come to think of it, I don't really think the Chinese should be either.

Following up on Lupo's "alternative car fuels" string, there's also bio-diesel. The restaurant I work at gives our waste-oil to a local potter who uses it to power both the truck he hauls it away in and his kiln. Obviously, not everyone could or would do bio-diesel (the fuel is free, but requires your personal effort to seek out, and I think up-front costs are fairly high, as with most of these non-standard technologies), but if you're serious about a personal sustainable lifestyle, it's a good option--the ultimate in recycling.

As for "The Grid," personal wind and solar power are becoming better options, with technical improvements, more dedicated producers/installers, and in many states, cash-back incentives to defray the up-front costs. You don't have to get off the grid entirely--in most states, you can sell back surplus power on sunny/windy days, and buy from the Electric Co. when you need it.

There are several fronts on which you can take action without worrying about gov't policy or the norms of production. If you really want to change policy, start by organizing individuals, families, and businesses locally, perhaps including running candidates for local or state office. If you need to seek a new locale to be effective, so be it, but act, don't petition others to act for you.

I think the Government knows alot more in reality about what our purpose is there than alot of us. Lets stir the pot, you want to see terrorists in control of Oil Regions or a Democratic Government? THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE! Without rational governments in place in the middle east, there will be a major risk and already is of terrorist acquiring Nukes. Sadaam gave the U.S Government enough excuse to go in smack dab in the middle which is a stretegic military strongpoint in between Isreal/Syria and Iran. Iran and Syria pat you on the back long enough to stick it in your rear. Oil equal Billions of Dollars, Money is Power.

My original point was, and remains, "we have the technology". The bottom line is we could do without Oil if we absolutely had to.

Personally, I think solar energy has the most future. Even a low efficiency solar cell on a cloudy day is better than nothing. Consider that you could cover every roof and overhang with them. We might not have enough energy to fulfill today's requirements even with that, but we'd be doing far be than we are today. Even just having all the large corporate buildings install them would go a long way. Me, I'd love to see them be integrated into vehicle body panels. It'd give them that trendy high tech look while making them that much more efficient.

By the way, this is a very cool car:
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Motor-Triathlon-Race-Car-Concept-MTRC.htm

That should be number one on the energy policy list.

But it makes no money for the multinationals, so...

As the price of crude oil rises, I think we're going to find that the economics increasingly favor conservation/efficiency combined with small-scale (single structure or neighborhood) solutions such as personal wind plants, photovoltics and passive solar design, and methane digesters that convert household waste to fuel. I also think that we're going to see massive resistance from the energy lobby to block movement away from traditional point-source energy, as their role as monopolists begins to transition into a background position of surplus/deficit distribution between individual and coop producers.

It doesn't?

What about all the manufacturing of additional insulation, solar panels, thermal units, double-paned windows? Construction costs for expanded mass transit network and manufacturing of transit vehicles?

I think you're right in that it won't make them as much money, but if we don't do something - they'll really be hating life 20yrs from now.