Ethanol may raise ozone levels more than gasoline, study says

[GaryC 7]

Regardless of this bogus report (200 extra deaths in a country of 300 million, what's your margin of error there exactly?) corn based ethanol is a bad idea, and the only reason anyone is considering it is because of the massive corn lobby in this country. Corn based ethanol means more massive subsidies for corn growers, coming out of tax payers pockets masked under a veneer of "green" ness to try to make it appeal to the general public.

For this country to become truly green, it needs to come up with solutions from scientists, not lobbiests.

Honestly, we'd be better off just going with oil for now, its not going to run out any time soon.

I tend to agree with you on that. The whole "green" thing is PC and political. The current fad always gets the attention from the press and those that tend to profit from that fad tend to push for it. Personally I wish we would put a major government push with full funding for nuclear fusion reactors. That is the real long term solution to our problem. Then everything can be converted to electric without any pollution at all.

[Niels Bohr 72]

There's a new experimental underground reactor. It's safer, and has a fail-safe meltdown protocol. It will never suffer a meltdown. It's being designed and tested on a computer simulation. No radiation leakage to the water table (underground water), safer than any nuclear plant around.

The lack of education amongst the civilian population brings panic, and fear on them. Before even running a power plant, they tested collisions with airplanes to see if the structure will collapse, etc...Chernobyll was the consequence of poor judgment, disregard to safety, and could've been avoided.

I favor Nuclear Energy because it favors sustainability and will eliminate the need to release harmful gases that bring habitat destruction creating a whole new set of problems.

Edited April 19, 2007 by consolemaster

[zyggy 9]

There's a new experimental underground reactor. It's safer, and has a fail-safe meltdown protocol. It will never suffer a meltdown. It's being designed and tested on a computer simulation. No radiation leakage to the water table (underground water), safer than any nuclear plant around.

The lack of education amongst the civilian population brings panic, and fear on them. Before even running a power plant, they tested collisions with airplanes to see if the structure will collapse, etc...Chernobyll was the consequence of poor judgment, disregard to safety, and could've been avoided.

I favor Nuclear Energy because it favors sustainability and will eliminate the need to release harmful gases that bring habitat destruction creating a whole new set of problems.

Actually radiation can't leak into the water since you can't get radioactive water from exposure to gamma radiation. There's a reason why nuclear reactors are surrounded by water at all times and why the spend fuel roads are placed in water filled tanks, it's a better barrier to radiation exposure than lead is. However, pretty much everything else can easily get exposure to radiation and that's the problem...

Nuclear power has been safely used all over the wordl to meet energy needs. France is more than 70% nuclear power. The fact that the US hasn't is a very good example of how the environmental lobby went too far. They were more interested in scare tactics and mass publicity spreading the very worst about nuclear power than actually wanting to have a discussion on the risks and rewards of nuclear power.

I have been in several nuclear power plants and believe me, they are among the safest and most regulated places on the planet...

Edited April 19, 2007 by zyggy

[Dr_LHA 3]

The fact that the US hasn't is a very good example of how the environmental lobby went too far. They were more interested in scare tactics and mass publicity spreading the very worst about nuclear power than actually wanting to have a discussion on the risks and rewards of nuclear power.

To be fair, the USA is also the home to the 2nd worst nuclear accident in history (Three Mile Island, which I drive past all the time), which adds to the public fear.

I tend to agree with you though, nuclear power is a good option for now. The biggest issue with it is the decomissioning costs (which are almost always underestimated) and what to do with spent fuel. The solutions to these problems always get the environmentalists up in arms.

[Robor007 0]

So...keeping these energy problems in mind, wouldn't it be a good idea to cut back on the gas we use NOW, in order to make it last longer? Just a thought.

[Robor007 0]

Regardless of this bogus report (200 extra deaths in a country of 300 million, what's your margin of error there exactly?) corn based ethanol is a bad idea, and the only reason anyone is considering it is because of the massive corn lobby in this country. Corn based ethanol means more massive subsidies for corn growers, coming out of tax payers pockets masked under a veneer of "green" ness to try to make it appeal to the general public.

For this country to become truly green, it needs to come up with solutions from scientists, not lobbiests.

Honestly, we'd be better off just going with oil for now, its not going to run out any time soon.

I tend to agree with you on that. The whole "green" thing is PC and political. The current fad always gets the attention from the press and those that tend to profit from that fad tend to push for it. Personally I wish we would put a major government push with full funding for nuclear fusion reactors. That is the real long term solution to our problem. Then everything can be converted to electric without any pollution at all.

What about the battery disposal? If all cars were suddenly converted to hybrids there would be a massive amount of spent batteries in a short while.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I thought they used silver rods to control the neutrons to slow the reaction down. Guess I was wrong.

[Dr_LHA 3]

What about the battery disposal? If all cars were suddenly converted to hybrids there would be a massive amount of spent batteries in a short while.

There's always another problem caused by any solution. The same can be said for the new energy efficient lightbulbs for example, which contain mercury, clearly a bad thing to suddenly have millions of people throw in the trash.

Right now Hybrid cars don't really make any economic sense, and I certainly wouldn't buy one. People are better off buying a fuel efficient small car. Remember folks, just because you had a baby, doesn't mean you have to suddenly start driving a van that can carry 8 adult passengers!

Edited April 19, 2007 by Dr_LHA

[Niels Bohr 72]

To be truly energy efficient is to use LED light bulbs. They may cost alot short term, but, it saves you alot of money long term given 0.27/kwh. LED light that gives out the same amount of light as a filament or gas bulb consume at most about 5 watts (approximation). It is expensive though, but, it lasts for as much as 50 years or longer. Traffic lights uses LEDs.

So, it saves you money on replacement bulbs over that 50 year period, energy, and reduces waste. Instead of replacing hundreds of bulbs in a few years. You only need to replace 2 per year.

[Robor007 0]

What about the battery disposal? If all cars were suddenly converted to hybrids there would be a massive amount of spent batteries in a short while.

There's always another problem caused by any solution. The same can be said for the new energy efficient lightbulbs for example, which contain mercury, clearly a bad thing to suddenly have millions of people throw in the trash.

Right now Hybrid cars don't really make any economic sense, and I certainly wouldn't buy one. People are better off buying a fuel efficient small car. Remember folks, just because you had a baby, doesn't mean you have to suddenly start driving a van that can carry 8 adult passengers!

I didn't realize the new fluorescent bulbs contained mercury.

I agree on the hybrids. I think I read somewhere that depending on the car the extra cost of the hybrid may never actually for itself in fuel savings.

[zyggy 9]

The fact that the US hasn't is a very good example of how the environmental lobby went too far. They were more interested in scare tactics and mass publicity spreading the very worst about nuclear power than actually wanting to have a discussion on the risks and rewards of nuclear power.

To be fair, the USA is also the home to the 2nd worst nuclear accident in history (Three Mile Island, which I drive past all the time), which adds to the public fear.

I tend to agree with you though, nuclear power is a good option for now. The biggest issue with it is the decomissioning costs (which are almost always underestimated) and what to do with spent fuel. The solutions to these problems always get the environmentalists up in arms.

Three Mile Island is one of the plants I have been in... Three Mile Island proved that the containment that was regulated by the NRC worked. Yes, you had a meltdown, but it didn't spread like Chernobyl did which had virtually no containment.

We have to ask ourselves why are plants being decommissioned. There are plants on France that are much older than plants here. The reason is due to economies of scale. It is much cheaper to operate a nuclear power plant when it is a major source of power for you. The reason plants are being decommissioned is because it is too expensive for utilities to operate only one nuclear power plant... In France, plants are not being decommissioned, they are being rehabbed and improved...

Agree about the solution regarding what to do about spent fuel, we already have a pretty suitable location for the stuff.. Yucca Mountain... again, it's a matter of emotions regarding a subject over having a reasonable discussion...

[Dr_LHA 3]

I didn't realize the new fluorescent bulbs contained mercury.

Read the bottom of this page. They're considered hazardous household waste!

http://eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.htm

I agree on the hybrids. I think I read somewhere that depending on the car the extra cost of the hybrid may never actually for itself in fuel savings.

I personally wouldn't buy one, but maybe leasing one is OK. The thing is, who knows how much they cost to fix when they get old? I doubt most mechanics would touch a hybrid, which means going back to the dealer to be screwed. Also what about when the batteries wear out, how much does a replacement set cost? Thousands?

[Niels Bohr 72]

The batteries cost about 5000 dollars. They need to be replaced every few years defeating the purpose of economic.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Three Mile Island is one of the plants I have been in... Three Mile Island proved that the containment that was regulated by the NRC worked. Yes, you had a meltdown, but it didn't spread like Chernobyl did which had virtually no containment.

Indeed, Three Mile Island wasn't a big deal, but those of us who remember it happening it seemed like a big deal at the time. My point being public perception rather than actual damage or contamination caused.

Agree about the solution regarding what to do about spent fuel, we already have a pretty suitable location for the stuff.. Yucca Mountain... again, it's a matter of emotions regarding a subject over having a reasonable discussion...

The bottom of a some deep ocean trenches are also good places to dump spent fuel rods. The water blocks the radiation, and the rods slowly dissolve back into the water, causing minimal contamination. Of course, to most people that solution would evoke the response: What about the mutant fishes!

[almaty 19]

The batteries cost about 5000 dollars. They need to be replaced every few years defeating the purpose of economic.

whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is steep