I tend to believe that nuclear power is a good trade off IF some basic problems of shoddy construction and plant oversight are solved.

Some experts are predicting $100 barrel oil by 2010. That might be independent pressure for alternative energy sources.

The cost overruns of the South Texas Nuclear project were astounding -- the project cost ten times the projection. On the other hand, people, including me, are not going to agree to live in the stone age.

And of course, if al Qaida can move its tactics from Iraq into Saudi Arabia (which is a real possibility), we may see $100/barrel oil much sooner - like in the next couple of years.

Nuclear is definitely looking like a more attractive option (or perhaps we can say, the least unattractive), especially with research into pebble bed reactors which would be, in theory, "meltdown proof."

But I wouldn't call it "clean," like Jane Galt does.

Plants can be built much cheaper and much safer. Cynics suspect that our regulatory climate was financed by the Sauds for their own selfish purposes. See Afgan pipeline speculations.

Suprise suprise - the Liberal Troll (me) opposes Kyoto. Because it's unfair. Of course the rules should apply to everybody.

Nuclear's fine - but I've read that we don't have enough fuel (without the use of breeder reactors - which are a proliferation threat), for more than 100 years or so.

We should continue to ramp investment in wind, and solar - both have proven the naysayers wrong. Solar may not be ready yet, but there's huge potential in the nascent field of nanotechnology to manufacture solar energy collection technology that addresses current problems.

But that's only a part of the problem, because the outputs from Solar, Wind, and Nuclear, are electricity. Electricity doesn't solve our transportation needs. Fuel cells are even less mature than solar. I agree that fuel cells should be developed, but I don't think that the potential is really there.

The transportation and heating problem can be solved with Biodiesel. A lot of the problems with Biodiesel are apparently solved with a new process that generates the fuel from algae cultivated in shallow ponds.
Petrodiesel has problems with particulates, and sulfur oxides, and it produces carbon that had previously been sequestered for millions of years. Biodiesel solves all of those emissions problems; Biodiesel has lower particulate output than gasoline engines under load. Biodiesel contains no sulfur, which allows a new generation of emissions control equipment to come on line to eliminate the nitrogen oxides as well (which is not possible with Petrodiesel until we get Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel - which in my opinion, is a pipe-dream. The oil companies don't want to produce it, they're not going to). Finally the production of Biodiesel removes carbon from the atmosphere, and the burning returns it. A closed cycle that yeilds a net neutral effect on greenhouse gasses. This is a good thing. Almost half the diesel cars on the road today can already run on biodiesel. Trucks and trains can be converted during a 10 to 20-year transition phase, the economic impact of the transition will be low, and overall, likely a net gain because we'll become less dependent on foreign oil, and won't have to spend $300 Billion every couple of years to prop up puppet dictators in third-world shitholes.

The resistance to nuclear energy for the last couple decades has been almost entirely based on irrational fears. As I understand it, Three Mile Island was basically a worst-case scenario based on the technology we had at the time, and a negligible amount of radiation was released.

I'm also a big supporter of wind power. And it's a shame that some rich liberals are opposing the Nantucket Sound wind farm.

I think some of our posters are ignorant (in the 'nice' sense of the word) with regard to just how much energy we get from fossil fuels and just how much of "alternative" sources we'd need to fungibly replace that energy.

For instance, having spent several thousand dollars in class and laboratory work, in addition to owning a company that deals directly with it, I consider myself something of an expert on the subject of biodiesel. Long story short: this green liberal loves the stuff.

That said, I'm under no illusions about its ability to replace petroleum energy. For instance (again), to replace 100% of the world's petroleum energy with soy biodiesel, would require six earth-sized planets covered in nothing but soybeans. Algeal biodiesel is better, but not by much.

I think people have a hard time remember that petroleum is stored plant energy (plus some animals). Energy that took roughly 300 million years to accumulate and that we will, quite literally, burn through in less than two hundred years.

That's a hell of a drawdown. In other words, we're seriously eating into principle and the end of this party is going to come with a hell of a seriously deadly hangover caused by energy intoxication.

Although they're nice, wind and the rest of the other alternative energies are complete non-starters. They might make you feel good, but they're never going to make you feel warm in winter. Again, do a comparative analysis of current petroleum energy consumption and then a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how many windmills that would take to replace.

Yes, nuclear is an option but even so you're going to need a lot of nuke plants to replace the oil. A LOT. Do we have the political will to do that? Do we have the technology to keep it clean and safe? I'm not sanguine.

On the other hand, a lot easier way out of our looming troubles can be found in lifestyle changes. I don't agree with any of the posters, or Ms. "Jane Galt" that lifestyle changes equate to hardship. We're a bunch of soft, spoiled, babies but I'm not convinced that we're really happy with the crappy suburban wasteland of a world we've created with all the excess energy.

There might just be a better, cleaner, and more humane way that simultaneously doesn't require burning down a 300-million year-built bank account in a 200-year overnight orgy of excess.

greg

Why is a liberal considered a troll? Seemed like an intelligent post to me. Meanwhile, France gets some huge percentage of their power from nuclear. Have they been having problems or did they turn down Saudi dollars?

The problem with Greg's post is that every one of those excuses for analysis look at one energy source replacing one energy source. Let's see, for alternatives there are solar, wind, tidal, ocean water temperature differential, nuclear and biodiesel. Did I miss anything among currently available or possible near term additions to our energy sources? And these are near term. Might I suggest an X-Prize for energy generation? If you do not make the mistake of focusing on only one system the combined output from using multiple sources where they each make sense will help reduce our dependence on oil. Then there's the potential for new discoveries in the long run. Who knows?

There's actually no problem with my post. Even aggregated together, the "alternative" energy sources don't, and can't, meet a fraction of our current energy consumption.

The United States consumes 63 quadrillion BTUs of oil and natural gas a year. We don't have a lot invested in solar, wind, or even biomass right now but what we do have invested produces just 3 quadrillion BTUs (biomass) + 0.07 q BTUs (solar) + 0.04 q BTUs (wind). I.e. a drop in the bucket.

How many freaking windmills will we have to build to, say, make even 10 quadrillion BTUs of energy? Ain't gonna happen, sorry.

Add to that fact that most alternative energy sources are extremely location-specific. You can't use wind where it ain't windy, all the time. You can't use solar where it ain't sunny, all the time. You can't use ocean water differential, or tidal, where there ain't no ocean.

As for new discoveries "in the long run." I'm forty one years old and I've heard that fusion/solar/wind/fuel cells/hydrogen/tidal/geothermal/biomass are all going to be "the energy of the future" for each of those forty-one years.

We're in a heap O' trouble. In the meantime, figure out how big a sail you have to strap on your SUV to propel it at 60MPH down I-65 in Indiana. Then multiply that sail area by the number of cars we have. That'll give you a pretty good estimation of the size of the problem we're facing.

greg

Let's see, by the numbers you quoted alternative forms of energy currently provide 4.7% of total energy usage. That's with damn little real effort to put them in place when measured in terms of the country's GDP. I should have clarified that I also think that improved energy conservation IS an important part of any strategy. I'd love to see a rapid proliferation of hybrid technology to most American cars. LED light sources replacing regular light bulbs at a halfway decent price point would be a good developement as well. LCD flat panels replacing standard computer monitors and television screens can save a lot of energy in this country. It's cumulative in my opinion.

There's even more news about measurements being taken to determine the reality of global warming. This involves measurements of ocean water temperatures.

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/02/18/build/nation/35-global-warming.inc

The scientists involved don't understand how anyone can doubt it any longer given that their study is based on over seven million temperature measurements.