Solving our energy problems

Discussion in 'Energy' started by RevBig, Feb 27, 2011.

  1. RevBig
    Offline

    RevBig Going 2 Church ie Camping

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Far East Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +6
    ~DISCLAIMER; NOTE TO MOD ADMIN; I WAS'T SURE WHAT TOPIC TO PLACE THIS IN, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MOVE IT~



    Short version;

    I think we could solve our energy problems and unemployment issues by a series of massive construction projects including building a number of nuclear power plants and electrifying our roads and interstates. We could also solve our oil dependence by placing electrical cable/induction systems in the road system to power a new generation of electric vehicles while allowing current vehicles to use the same road. Private industry would be enriched because new electric vehicles would be required. These new vehicles would use induction (pulling power from the embedded cable or devices in the road), which would be powered by energy from fission reactors.

    end of short version

    Long version (below)

    I am no scientist no engineer etc but I do have common sense and life experience to go with a humble MA in theology. It seems to me that most of our energy problems are administrative and emotional. France generates about 75 % of its electrical needs via nuclear fission reactors. We could do the same thing if we would get over the emotional aspects of long-term storage. Our old ‘emotional’ strategy is to provide storage that would be stable over geologic time scales i.e. ten thousand to a million years is not realistic. No, I would guess building a storage facility that would hermetically store hundreds of millions of tons of radioactive waste even a thousand years is pushing the technology envelope. What we should do instead is build a crypt that would safely store the waste say 250 to 500 years. It would be designed to be easily and inexpensively refurbished at regular intervals and the cost of the refurbished could be included in the cost of electrical energy. It may even pay for itself because the waste generates a lot of heat energy.


    The president should attempt to influence congress and the senate to get on board with a massive nuclear building mandate. I would suggest using France as a model; they employed many efficient ideas such as having the highest standardization in the industry. That’s not all. I would also direct auto manufactures to build a new kind of electric vehicle. That vehicle would draw its primary electrical from implanted cables in the roadways (induction) as well as use battery power for areas that were not ‘inductified‘ (ha ha my word). Therefore, we would have two massive federal and privatized building projects going at one time. That would be the power plant building projects and a mandate to electrify every main interstate road system in the USA. First, the interstates and cities would be energized, then secondary roads and small towns would receive the upgrades. Our current vehicles would have unfettered use of the roads because laying a cable or induction device in the roadway while traditional traffic flows should be an easy technological feat. It would solve several problems at once including our unemployment plight.

    end of long version

    rs
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2011
  2. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845


    Instead of a massive and predictably wasteful Federal government program of construction, just pass a law that the reactors need to meet definable standards. As long as those standards are met, they are held harmless from legal action. Use those in force in France if they work and then protect the private investors from the inevitavble legal suits by the loons on the Left that have prevented the construction of same for 40 years.

    Right now, every new law applies to all construction and the result is that no reactor will ever come on line because every new regulation affects every reactor and requires retorfits and legal action to stay in service.

    The Government is not the answer. It's the problem. By not protecting those who would provide the ability to provide energy, they have condemned any attempt to provide it.

    By the by, oil was just found in Indiana. A well was hit that should produce 4-500 barrels per day.

    If California would allow off shore drilling, they could solve their fiscal dillemma today. Same is true of any state with an ocean coastline. It might be time to remove the collective heads of many of our staes from their collective arses and use the solutions that they have before them to solve the problems that they have on top of them.

    In this way we could continue to pay the public sector employees twice what the private sector earns and also provide cradle to grave benefits worth ten times the average.
     
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    If we're going to be pushing quadrillions of tons of metal down every road and highway in the USA using electricity we're going to have to generate one hell of a lot more electricity than we do now.

    I don't see electric cars as any kind of solution to the ENGERY crises.

    In fact electric cars are less a efficent mode of transport.

    Likewise hydrogen cars make no sense in dealing with our energy problem.

    Both of those might help with local pollution problems, but they do nothing to solve the energy problem.
     
  4. RevBig
    Offline

    RevBig Going 2 Church ie Camping

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Far East Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +6
    I am a libertarian by heart, and I agree that government in most cases isn't the solution. However due to the inherent dangers of nuclear power generation and the unbelievable cost of construction the feds would be the better choice in this kind of project. Maybe all of the construction could be contracted out. I also mentioned in my thread that all reactor design should be standardized, so I agree with you. I agree with most if not all of your reply.

    rb
     
  5. RevBig
    Offline

    RevBig Going 2 Church ie Camping

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Far East Tennessee
    Ratings:
    +6
    I agree and wonder why the greens so champion pure electrics when they have to be plugged in at night to system that gets its electricity from coal and gas generated power! However if those vehicles were plugged into a grid that received 90% of its power from fission generators I could sleep at night! These cars, if they used induction as I suggested would have unlimited range too! Additionally, I fully agree with hydrogen being a bad idea considering our current technology including no infrastructure to support liquid H. The ideal fuel would be non food product generated alcohol, if an efficient way to distill or grow** alcohol could be developed.

    We need a way to break down woody plant cell walls to make fermentation possible. Additionally a way must be found to heat the material efficiently. For alcohol to become a primary fuel, corn must be replaced with other biomass material to make alcohol. I am highly interested in bioengineering bacteria or other microorganisms that would break down the woody cells of waste biomass. Fibrous waste (from wood waste and paper production or simple bio waste such as scrub and chipped wood etc) and produce alcohol. Actually fission power generation could assist in developing that kind of technology by using the waste heat from the nuclear cycle to heat the mash that would eventually be fermented to make alcohol.

    The real problem is to get around the oil companies and our own government why are hiding the dangerous situation were are now in! Its as if they were hiding the fact that a BFR* (an asteroid) was found heading our way and the government and other vested interest groups are hiding it until the last possible moment! We are running out of oil, and the time to develop other technologies is short IMO.

    * BFR = Big Freakin' Rock

    ** By growing alcohol I mean using algae for fermentation material or woody biomass products, ie waste products for the same. Solar power or the waste heat from the fission plants could be used to heat the 'mash' ie the fermented material.

    rb
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  6. skookerasbil
    Online

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,203
    Thanks Received:
    2,913
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,213
    Nobody wants electric cars except the k00ks..........


    Good try s0n but.......

    Next.........



    PS.........we're not running out of oil. Thats a myth. Biofuels are way too expensive and inefficient. Lastly, government doesnt do anything efficiently. If you're having trouble sleeping, cut down on the caffeine.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  7. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Induction is inherently inefficient. Just so's ya know.
     
  8. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    It is a myth that "Greenies" demand electric cars.

    It is also a myth that greenies demanded ethanol.

    Who was the number one shill for ethanol?

    BOB DOLE, former Kansas Republican Senator.
     
  9. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Actually, look up the clean air act and learn what really happened instead of regurgitating a partisan hackaziod inaccuracy.

    But for the record, I can't stand ethanol. Inefficient, and NOT "cleaner." Well, slightly "cleaner" if all one counts is CO2 emissions, but it emits 100 times more CO -- carbon monoxide -- than gasoline. That's just the fundamental reason to be against it. That and somehow, burning FOOD never made any sense to me anyway.

    On your 85/15 blend: Actually makes your vehicle burn MORE gasoline than it would without the ethanol, because you have to have a heavier foot to get the same performance out of the vehicle you would have had without it. Many studies done which verify this, all ignored. Once a boondoggle is entrenched it's almost impossible to get rid of.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  10. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    Can you cite or reference any of the studies which support your contentions?
     

Share This Page