Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming

[Dan J 277]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

If we were to switch most of our power generation to nuclear power, we would have to find a lot of new sources of uranium. Uranium will end up being the new oil.

We have had this conversation before. Breeder reactors enable you to recyle the uranium and create a fuel cycle. Trust me, getting fuel for a nation full of reactors isn't a problem.

No, they still consume uranium, not create it. They create plutonium, which is also then consumed in the primary reaction. But eventually it will run out of fuel.

The only difference is that its more effcient than a standard reactor. We still have to supply it with uranium. That and we have to figure out how to run them cost effectively. The US has long since shut down its only breeder reactor and the only working one is in Russia.

[GaryC 7]

What? they just drop it down a mine shaft and hope for the best?

It's a long way from that. Yucca mountain has been researched for a long time. It is a very safe place to store high level nuclear waste. Read up on it.

[GaryC 7]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

If we were to switch most of our power generation to nuclear power, we would have to find a lot of new sources of uranium. Uranium will end up being the new oil.

We have had this conversation before. Breeder reactors enable you to recyle the uranium and create a fuel cycle. Trust me, getting fuel for a nation full of reactors isn't a problem.

No, they still consume uranium, not create it. They create plutonium, which is also then consumed in the primary reaction. But eventually it will run out of fuel.

The only difference is that its more effcient than a standard reactor. We still have to supply it with uranium. That and we have to figure out how to run them cost effectively. The US has long since shut down its only breeder reactor and the only working one is in Russia.

The point is we can run for hundreds of years with available supplies and existing technology. It isn't a short term solution, it's a long term one. Look at France. They get most of their electricity from nuclear power. It works for them.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am serious about the storage problem Landfill is already causing tremendous problems and will continue to do so until we make some real efforts to cut down on what we throw away. It can be done too, we're just too lazy as a society to make the effort. I just hope that if we do go down the nuclear route the waste is taken a little more seriously than we take any other waste prodcut.

[GaryC 7]

I am serious about the storage problem Landfill is already causing tremendous problems and will continue to do so until we make some real efforts to cut down on what we throw away. It can be done too, we're just too lazy as a society to make the effort. I just hope that if we do go down the nuclear route the waste is taken a little more seriously than we take any other waste prodcut.

Yucca mountain has been studied. Here, read up on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

[Dan J 277]

No one who understands biofuel production actually believes corn is the answer. Most believe it lies in the use of cellulose from waste materials. Although I guess we could always continue to suck off the teat of the oil producing nations. I mean, oil is never going to run out...right?

The problem with ethanol is that it will never be a viable alternative to gasoline. There just is not enough latent energy within crops to ever power even Texas. Conservation is important, but trying to mandate consumption is a VERY slippery slope.

As far as cellulose from waste materials, that's not going to provide much. It would be much better used as a fuel for small power providers. Again, all of the plants in the world couldn't fuel America.

The only option we have that will significantly reduce oil consumption is nuclear power. The problem is it is expensive infrastructure and the capitalist climate in America makes such a higher priced alternative hard to justify. Another option is clean coal power plants. They can provide electricity.

Using nuclear extensively, we could probably produce enough hydrogen for our transportation needs. However, hydrogen is a ######. It isn't like gasoline. Fuel cells are probably the best bet. Fuel cells are nowhere near that point, though.

The best thing we, as a country could do, is invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and increase the use of flex-time to limit transportation requirements. Quite frankly, most of the US does not have any decent public transit and it greatly increases our fuel needs.

If we were to switch most of our power generation to nuclear power, we would have to find a lot of new sources of uranium. Uranium will end up being the new oil.

We have had this conversation before. Breeder reactors enable you to recyle the uranium and create a fuel cycle. Trust me, getting fuel for a nation full of reactors isn't a problem.

No, they still consume uranium, not create it. They create plutonium, which is also then consumed in the primary reaction. But eventually it will run out of fuel.

The only difference is that its more effcient than a standard reactor. We still have to supply it with uranium. That and we have to figure out how to run them cost effectively. The US has long since shut down its only breeder reactor and the only working one is in Russia.

The point is we can run for hundreds of years with available supplies and existing technology. It isn't a short term solution, it's a long term one. Look at France. They get most of their electricity from nuclear power. It works for them.

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html

At current consumption. But then, then consumption level for uranium is pretty low compared to oil and other resources. But if we were to cut out oil and coal and switch completely to nuclear, hundreds of years will turn into decades.

At this time Nuclear power can really only compliment our current energy needs. Not replace them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nuclear energy is the most viable transitional energy source, until we find commercially viable renewable sources.

We can't get off oil for the present - but we could sure get off coal.

[Jamie76 0]

The point is we can run for hundreds of years with available supplies and existing technology. It isn't a short term solution, it's a long term one. Look at France. They get most of their electricity from nuclear power. It works for them.

Not quite right. There are just as many people talking about peak uranium as there are peak oil.

[Peikko 1,575]

I read it. Geologically it appears relatively safe but I am still not concinved that we know enough about the consequences of storing large amounts of nuclear waste. Humans are remarkably short sighted at the best of times, the 'let's do it and worry what might happen later' syndrome is a constant in everything we do.

[GaryC 7]

http://www.fraw.org.uk/mobbsey/papers/oies_article.html

At current consumption. But then, then consumption level for uranium is pretty low compared to oil and other resources. But if we were to cut out oil and coal and switch completely to nuclear, hundreds of years will turn into decades.

At this time Nuclear power can really only compliment our current energy needs. Not replace them.

Sorry but that is wrong. With current supplies and breeder reactors we can sustain the fuel cycle for a very long time.

http://www2.ans.org/pi/ip/pdfs/nonproliferation.pdf

Edited February 27, 2008 by GaryC

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

(Lucky's comment: My background ranges from nuclear plant operator to currently working in a low level radioactive landfill and everything in between. Lawyers and the uninformed public are the only true enemies of nuclear power (IMHO). Educate yourselves peeps.)

World Uranium Reserves

One important fact that must be understood is that, unlike the gas and oil, the cost of the uranium ore is a negligible fraction of the cost of nuclear power (with almost all of nuclear power cost being in the form of value added by domestic labor).

As is discussed in more detail later, limitless supplies of uranium are present in seawater and in the earth’s crust, which can be extracted at some price. The question is how much uranium is available at a cost that doesn’t truly price nuclear power out of the market.

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html