Nuclear power must be thought of as a cleaner stepping stone between fossil fuels and the future, clean, renewable energy sources that will replace both (I’m looking at you, fusion, solar, hydro, etc).

Comment by Juan C — January 3, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

Here’s the funny think about nuclear waste, though, Juan. It takes up an incredibly small amount of space, and so long as it is stored properly so that radiation is contained (in leaded concrete bunkers, with Japanese-skyscraper-style motion so that they are all but impervious to earthquakes and the like), the risk is incredibly small compared to other forms of comparable energy providers. That much is known.

What we don’t know is what to do with it beyond that. BUT, think about it with this in mind: Do you think we can find a legitimate technological use for such extremely rare substances? Especially considering that we have a large timeframe with which to work until there it becomes dangerous?

What’s more, by the time it becomes a problem (hundreds, perhaps thousands of years from now, as opposed to the vastly closer fossil fuel dilemma), we could very easily be exploring space, and could store it on a desolate moon or asteroid. That’s only if we haven’t found another use for it by then. I highly doubt that will be the case at our current rate of progress. We could “merely” discover how to make it inert with efficiency and safety. Or the “waste” could become a source of energy or raw material for some other important industrial application. Perhaps space travel itself.

In the short term, nuclear power would give the whole world a huge energy supply until another alternative is found. With how safe it has become over the decades since it’s inception, nuclear power has serious potential to relieve the world of the wars for energy that have so dominated the international scene for so very, very long.

And once we discover the the next great source of energy, such as fusion power, or whatever completely unknown and unforeseen sources of energy lie in our future, nuclear power, like fossil fuels, can be discarded like yesterday’s news.

All of that without even counting the supplementation of such a fuel source with solar power, wind power, hydro power, etc. Humanity was bamboozled into giving up nuclear power by the vitriolic rhetoric spewed by the industries threatened by it. Wonder which industries? Hmmmm.

In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
“Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.”
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.

The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.

In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.

This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA. 91325
1-3-2007

P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs)the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.

Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?

Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence.

The magnitude of Mr. Bush and his father’s sordid subversion of the American governmental process is beyond measure. Given the degeneration of laws, systems, processes, the destruction of rights, entire departments, agencies, and loss of highly-qualified and dedicated personnel who guided the ‘leading body’ without rancor or prejudice …

The total destruction of fair and balanced dissemination of information to the public! This alone is reprehensible …

His and his family’s blatant conflict of interest within the oil industry and their thirst for more money with complete contempt for the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH (not only America) is beyond disgust, beyond corporate theft.

G.W. Bush has created a future where we will all have to work hard just to reach a place where each person’s basic survival needs have been met. (and yeah, it’s gonna cost some money, so NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE!)

- Health Care (pharms own the government right now, gotta go, gotta go right now!)
- Housing (deteriorated … Katrina folks included)
- Jobs (Walmart wont make a secure future)
- Childcare (Leave them behind, trickle down, it’s all wrong)
- Water (it still pisses me off that we pay for *pure*water, it’s just dumb. Where are we? Dune?)
- Environment (Her blue body and everything we know)
- Energy (buuaahhahahahahhahha!!! Yah, open up friggin’ Alaska?!?! – for who?)
- Transportation (Army of Engineers? hahah. Emissions Testing?hhahah SUV’s & Humvees – yippeee!)
- Publications
- Communications
- WTO

… basta. I’ve vented, thanks

Comment by Juan C — January 3, 2007 @ 4:57 pm

No, but many cars in recent years have been classified as ultra low emission vehicles (ULEV) or SULEV (super-). As for carbon dioxide, I found several sources that indicate when biofuels are burned, they release the carbon dioxide that the plants took in when growing. Thus no new amounts of carbon dioxide are released, unlike fossil fuels. I also read that mixing biofuels with fossil fuels reduces the amount of pollutants produced if the fossil fuels were burned alone.

One thing I think that is agreeable is that representatives/supporters of Big Oil will always say there’s a net energy deficit, and representatives/supporters of ethanol will always say there’s a net energy surplus. At least for the near future. You and I are left in the middle trying to sort it all out.

One other tidbit before I leave for home…

Late last summer (2005) NBC News reporter Kerry Sanders took a 2 day road trip down the East Coast to check gas prices. Along the way he ran across a station selling E85 for $2.35 a gallon. This was a time when ethanol-free gas was going for about $2.75/gal.

Ok now factor in that all the US corn acreage can produce 15pct of todays gasoline needs, ethanol is bad for the air, takes a lot of water to make and using corn will push up food prices…. still no panacea. When I’m off my treo ill do better responding.

Would biofuels help to stop greenhouse gas release? No. So, again…not a whole solution.

“Big Citizen didn’t stop Chimpy” – EXACTLY what the problem is. In a democracy, we get the government and society we seek and, therefore, deserve. Maybe we’ve learned from our self-induced “Neocon Pearl Harbor”. I hope the Democratic leaders speak out, now and loud. We may be in a critical, now or never time period.

Comment by TerrytheTurtle — January 3, 2007 @ 4:34 pm

A different take from the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition (just a quick source I had access to) says it is not energy negative.

From e85fuel.com:

Current research prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (a U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory), indicates a 38% gain in the overall energy input/output equation for the corn-to-ethanol process. That is, if 100 BTUs of energy is used to plant corn, harvest the crop, transport it, etc., 138 BTUs of energy is available in the fuel ethanol. Corn yields and processing technologies have improved significantly over the past 20 years and they continue to do so, making ethanol production less and less energy intensive.