Renewables

[StoopTroup]

Solar, Geo-thermal, Wind, Farts. Human generated Treadmills, wood, Hydroelectric...

Amount to 1% of our total energy consumption?

Oil is 37%
NG is 25%
Coal is 21%
----------
Total is 83%

Now 83% plus 1% equals 84%.

Where the hell is the other 16% and what is it?

Lou Dobbs then suddenly says that Nuclear is up to 21%.

So now we've covered the 16% but we are now 5% over 100% of our total usage in the US?

I'm sorry but when these guys get on TV...do they lose their Darn minds?

[cleller]

While the rebates are on, if anyone should build a new home out in the country, geothermal deserves serious consideration.

Scary and unpopular as it is, I'm a big believer in nuclear power. The natural gas glut has probably pushed nukes to the back burner, but nukes make sense to both global warming people, and people wanting lower costs.

Maybe someday we'll have fusion.

[StoopTroup]

I went back and tried to make some sense out of what he was trying to say and I got nothing.

37+25+21+21=104

If renewables are being argued at anywhere from 1% to 5% and Lou's total is at already 104...

I think he maybe needs to go to Khan Academy and take some math classes with Turd. :D ;)

[StoopTroup]

While the rebates are on, if anyone should build a new home out in the country, geothermal deserves serious consideration.

Scary and unpopular as it is, I'm a big believer in nuclear power. The natural gas glut has probably pushed nukes to the back burner, but nukes make sense to both global warming people, and people wanting lower costs.

Maybe someday we'll have fusion.

I remember the first article I ever saw on Fusion. It was fascinating to see how far they had tried to go to contain and control the fusion. I think back then they were at around a billion dollars on that particular project and it was still to unstable and expensive. 30+ years later...we don't seem to be much further along than we were then. Is that because we failed to invest in more research or failed to find solutions?

I agree with you on fusion but it sure seems like the idea of it is still more of a dream and unless it's because we failed to invest in research...It would seem that unless some Mathematician or Scientist or some guy in his garage (LOL) comes up with something to lower the cost or Stephen Hawking suddenly begins to be able to tell us what the hell we did wrong...we are dead in the water regarding fusion.

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/fusion-525.jpg

[cleller]

About 30 years ago I had a class in astronomy at OU. Great class, great professor. At that time he talked about fusion for energy. If we could achieve it on earth, it would basically end all energy woes.

He explained the major hurdle was that during fusion, the heat involved would melt anything known to man. He postulated at the time that possibly some sort of "force field" type setting might be found to contain the action.

Too much for me. Maybe it will never happen. We're either going to have to live with nukes, or quit complaining about the cost and greenhouse gases.

[StoopTroup]

About 30 years ago I had a class in astronomy at OU. Great class, great professor. At that time he talked about fusion for energy. If we could achieve it on earth, it would basically end all energy woes.

He explained the major hurdle was that during fusion, the heat involved would melt anything known to man. He postulated at the time that possibly some sort of "force field" type setting might be found to contain the action.

Too much for me. Maybe it will never happen. We're either going to have to live with nukes, or quit complaining about the cost and greenhouse gases.

Sounds like the same speech I got at TU when I was there.

We still need to contain the fusion on a mass scale and it seems the energy we need to do that is equal to the energy it provides? If the containment becomes something simple like using a raw magnetic field or gravity for instance....we could harness it but since the product of the fusion is energy...we are probably screwed.


As of July 2010, the largest experiment by means of magnetic confinement has been the Joint European Torus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_European_Torus) (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawatt) (21,600 hp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower)) of fusion power (65% of input power), with fusion power of over 10 MW (13,000 hp) sustained for over 0.5 sec. Its successor, ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER), was officially announced as part of a seven-country consortium. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#cite_note-announcement-0) ITER is designed to produce ten times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29#Artificial_plasmas). ITER is currently under construction in Cadarache (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadarache), France.

[StoopTroup]

Here was the explanation I had been given and the Low Quantity Approach. It's the Low Quantity Approach that I think that someday someone if going to try something on their own and then Scientists will look at it and while the guy who shows them what he built and how he got it to work is drinking a beer.....they are going to start melting down as to how simple the solution was and how it had been right in front of them. Maybe something like putting the reactor on the bottom of the Sea and the depths of pressure down around 10,000 feet below Sea level could achieve a way to contain it and keep it away from us all. Of course...then we will see japan begin new Godzilla Movies. LOL


Over the years there have been a wide variety of fusion concepts. In general they fall into three groups - those that attempt to reach high temperature/density for brief times (pinch, inertial confinement), those that operate at a steady state (magnetic confinement) or those that try neither and instead attempt to produce low quantities of fusion but do so at an extremely low cost. The latter group has largely disappeared, as the difficulties of achieving fusion have demonstrated that any low-energy device is unlikely to produce net gain. This leaves the two major approaches, magnetic and laser inertial, as the leading systems for development funding. However, alternate approaches continue to be developed, and alternate non-power fusion devices have been successfully developed as well.

[Ike]

Solar, Geo-thermal, Wind, Farts. Human generated Treadmills, wood, Hydroelectric...

Amount to 1% of our total energy consumption?

Oil is 37%
NG is 25%
Coal is 21%
----------
Total is 83%

Now 83% plus 1% equals 84%.

Where the hell is the other 16% and what is it?

Lou Dobbs then suddenly says that Nuclear is up to 21%.

So now we've covered the 16% but we are now 5% over 100% of our total usage in the US?

I'm sorry but when these guys get on TV...do they lose their Darn minds?

Most likely, Mr Dobbs was quoting the fraction of electricity produced by nuclear, whereas the others are total energy use. In other words, different denominators

[soonercruiser]

While the rebates are on, if anyone should build a new home out in the country, geothermal deserves serious consideration.

Scary and unpopular as it is, I'm a big believer in nuclear power. The natural gas glut has probably pushed nukes to the back burner, but nukes make sense to both global warming people, and people wanting lower costs.

Maybe someday we'll have fusion.

My house comes "on-line" tomorrow morning.
OR.....Oklahoma County will be leveled!
(Anybody tried the nuclear home kits on eBay?)

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Scary and unpopular as it is, I'm a big believer in nuclear power. The natural gas glut has probably pushed nukes to the back burner, but nukes make sense to both global warming people, and people wanting lower costs.

Maybe someday we'll have fusion.
Agreed, people (Greenpeace et al) who campaign against nuclear power due to the meltdown threat don't really know what they're talking about. Its taken an act of god (Fukashima) and the most blatant mis-operation (Chernobyl) to cause meltdowns. Sure there was 3 Mile Island which scared the hell out of people here, but the containment procedure went exactly according to plan there if I am correct.

There is the problem with what to do with the spent waste/fuel rods, but its still a lot cleaner than other non-renewables. Though really in 20-30 years, there's no reason (other than lobbying from the fossil fuel industry) we should be totally off non-renewable sources. Between geothermal, wind, sun and tidal power, which we have access to plenty of, we could be energy independent. But that doesn't interest the folks in power lining their pockets with oil $$

[sappstuf]

Agreed, people (Greenpeace et al) who campaign against nuclear power due to the meltdown threat don't really know what they're talking about. Its taken an act of god (Fukashima) and the most blatant mis-operation (Chernobyl) to cause meltdowns. Sure there was 3 Mile Island which scared the hell out of people here, but the containment procedure went exactly according to plan there if I am correct.

There is the problem with what to do with the spent waste/fuel rods, but its still a lot cleaner than other non-renewables. Though really in 20-30 years, there's no reason (other than lobbying from the fossil fuel industry) we should be totally off non-renewable sources. Between geothermal, wind, sun and tidal power, which we have access to plenty of, we could be energy independent. But that doesn't interest the folks in power lining their pockets with oil $$

How does any of that replace gasoline for your car?

[okie52]

Agreed, people (Greenpeace et al) who campaign against nuclear power due to the meltdown threat don't really know what they're talking about. Its taken an act of god (Fukashima) and the most blatant mis-operation (Chernobyl) to cause meltdowns. Sure there was 3 Mile Island which scared the hell out of people here, but the containment procedure went exactly according to plan there if I am correct.

There is the problem with what to do with the spent waste/fuel rods, but its still a lot cleaner than other non-renewables. Though really in 20-30 years, there's no reason (other than lobbying from the fossil fuel industry) we should be totally off non-renewable sources. Between geothermal, wind, sun and tidal power, which we have access to plenty of, we could be energy independent. But that doesn't interest the folks in power lining their pockets with oil $$

Haha...I've been hearing how green energy would get us off of oil for over 50 years now and nobody with any clue predicts oil and/or gas will be out of our system in the next 40 years. Let the volt and solyndra illustrate our current green energy capabilities.

Nukes are, however, an excellent energy source and should be employed on a much greater scale than they are now. As far as the waste goes we had the perfect place for waste storage in Yucca until Obama killed it and has offered no replacement site. Billions of dollars wasted by Obama....he11, his own energy secretary Chu had recommended Yucca just a few months before he was appointed secretary.

[TitoMorelli]

How does any of that replace gasoline for your car?

So many of you are still in the Dark Ages around here.

http://www.mywindpowersystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wind-powered-car.jpg

[sappstuf]

So many of you are still in the Dark Ages around here.

http://www.mywindpowersystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wind-powered-car.jpg

I prefer foot power for those cloudy or light wind days..

http://www.inautonews.com/wp-content/plugins/yet-another-photoblog/cache/fred_flintstone_car_11.2vpikqt313ggowskoccswg4s4.a 5fuq7lrqzkgc0ccw4ss08gso.th.jpeg

[jkjsooner]

I've always wondered if there's not another way to get hydrogen atoms energetic enough to fuse without simply heating the mixture up to millions of degrees. What if you could shoot hydrogen atoms at a real high speed at each other (which would be similar to thermal energy but much more local) and cause a lower rate of fusion.

It just seems to me that heating the cocktail to a fusion temperature is a crude way to go about it.

Edit: Just read StoopTroup's post and it appears my idea is not at all unique.


or those that try neither and instead attempt to produce low quantities of fusion but do so at an extremely low cost.

[TVKaleen]

Even if by some miracle we were to be off off all oil-based fuels tomorrow, we would still need to drill for oil.

Petroleum is used for a lot more than just fuel. The biggest concern I have read about is plastic and bearing lubrication. I've read a few articles on using corn and plant based alternatives for both but neither work as well as the by-products of petroleum do.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

Oil.. it's more than just fuel.

[cleller]

We're very lucky in the USA. There is the ability to build natural gas power plants in lieu of nukes. For most of the world it will boil down to coal or nukes. Wind, solar etc just can't keep up with demand.

I believe the environmentalists are finding their match a probabilities show a greater likelihood of the the planet surviving with nukes over coal-fired plants. There have been changes and advances in nuke designs of course, too. I think GE and Toshiba both have some designs that a giant strides ahead of the older plants, in terms of safety.

A good, older article on fusion from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4270297.stm

[pphilfran]

We could cover the US in wind turbines, solar cells, and nuke plants and we would still use the same amount of oil....less than 1% of electrical generation comes from oil...

[pphilfran]

Renewable includes hydro...other renewable excludes hydro...

ST, all of the answers to your questions are here...

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0102

In 2010....

The US used 75.031 quadrillion btu's of energy...

Coal generated 22.077 of the 75.041
NG accounted for 22.086
Crude oil 11.669
Nukes 8.441
Hydro 2.509
Other renewable 8.064

[jumperstop]

Technically oil, coal, and ng are all renewable....it'll only take a few millions of years and a couple of mass extinctions...

[pphilfran]

Technically oil, coal, and ng are all renewable....it'll only take a few millions of years and a couple of mass extinctions...

They would be classified as other, other, renewable....

[Ike]

We could cover the US in wind turbines, solar cells, and nuke plants and we would still use the same amount of oil....less than 1% of electrical generation comes from oil...

That would be true for a while at least. But such a world, if it were to exist would open up a wide range of possibilities for electrically based transportation. Cars that are powered by the road for instance, thus removing the need for a battery. (Technically possible le with today's tech, but requiring more electricity than we have the capacity to generate. )

[StoopTroup]

So many of you are still in the Dark Ages around here.

http://www.mywindpowersystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wind-powered-car.jpg

This is still gas but you don't waste fuel waiting in traffic or at stop signs for a good portion of your trip and you can live in the Sticks and fly into the city for work in much less time.

http://topuspost.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/4-3-12-Flying-car_full_6001.jpg

[StoopTroup]

http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-04-03/0403_flyingcar_630x420.jpg

[StoopTroup]

If you want a flying Trike....

http://www.ridexperience.com/files/2012/04/PAL-V-Flying-Car.jpeg

[pphilfran]

That would be true for a while at least. But such a world, if it were to exist would open up a wide range of possibilities for electrically based transportation. Cars that are powered by the road for instance, thus removing the need for a battery. (Technically possible le with today's tech, but requiring more electricity than we have the capacity to generate. )

So that new technology can only run on electricity generated by solar, wind, or nukes?

[pphilfran]

If the EPA gets it's way we will need solar, wind, and nukes because there will not be any more coal fired plants...

At least they grandfathered in old coal plants...

Of course we can always use carbon capture to reduce emissions...a technology that does not exist in larges scale...technology that requires a quarter of the electricity that is generated to scrub the CO2...so we would need to build 4 CO2 capture plants to get output of the what we currently get out of 3...

And then we plan to store several cubic miles of highly compressed CO2 for eternity...but we can't seem to find a place to store a significantly smaller amount of nuke waste...


http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/pdfs/20120327proposal.pdf

[pphilfran]

It depends on what your goal is...my goal would be to get us off of ME crude...my methods would reduce our dependence on imported crude and lower CO2 levels...

Obama's singular goal is to reduce CO2 emissions...and his policy reflects his stance...

[okie52]

You've nailed it Phil.

[pphilfran]

You've nailed it Phil.

I can't believe people can't put 2 and 2 together...

Everything he has said or done points toward his grave concern about CO2 and little concern to costs....there is middle ground that could be reached that could achieve both true energy independence and reduced CO2 levels...but that will not happen as long as Obama is in charge...

[okie52]

I can't believe people can't put 2 and 2 together...

Everything he has said or done points toward his grave concern about CO2 and little concern to costs....there is middle ground that could be reached that could achieve both true energy independence and reduced CO2 levels...but that will not happen as long as Obama is in charge...

His quest for reduced CO2 continues even when it defies all logic...

Chu has been a huge disappointment.

[sappstuf]

It depends on what your goal is...my goal would be to get us off of ME crude...my methods would reduce our dependence on imported crude and lower CO2 levels...

Obama's singular goal is to reduce CO2 emissions...and his policy reflects his stance...

Phil, you are starting to sound a lot like a politician... Except, well, you know, the part where your goals actually include common sense.

[StoopTroup]

Mmmmm....Co2 is bad M'kay?

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/24100000/Mr-Mackey-mr-mackey-24128280-700-450.jpg

[pphilfran]

Mmmmm....Co2 is bad M'kay?

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/24100000/Mr-Mackey-mr-mackey-24128280-700-450.jpg

Plant life doesn't think so...

[SCOUT]

Interestingly enough, CO2 can actually be used to make sources like wind and solar more viable. They are using underground compressed C02 as a sort of a battery to store energy generated at off-peak times. Here is an article on the subject.
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2010/02/09/utah-underground-energy-storage/

[pphilfran]

They do similar stuff with hydro

[Ike]

So that new technology can only run on electricity generated by solar, wind, or nukes?

No. But if we blanket the country in wind/solar/nukes like you said, that's a massive increase in our electric generation capacity...

[StoopTroup]

I like windmills.

[StoopTroup]

Also....if you owned some land and could prove you had a spot where you could put a mindwill that will produce electricity and be able to sell it to the grid....why wouldnt you or couldnt you get a loan to have one or two built?

Are the downsides that bad?

Is maintenance an issue?

Dead Bird cleanup?

[soonercoop1]

While the rebates are on, if anyone should build a new home out in the country, geothermal deserves serious consideration.

Scary and unpopular as it is, I'm a big believer in nuclear power. The natural gas glut has probably pushed nukes to the back burner, but nukes make sense to both global warming people, and people wanting lower costs.

Maybe someday we'll have fusion.

Nuclear would be great if there were a safe way to dispose of the waste and probably not very smart to build them in earthquake-prone zones...

[Soonerjeepman]

About 30 years ago I had a class in astronomy at OU. Great class, great professor. At that time he talked about fusion for energy. If we could achieve it on earth, it would basically end all energy woes.

He explained the major hurdle was that during fusion, the heat involved would melt anything known to man. He postulated at the time that possibly some sort of "force field" type setting might be found to contain the action.

Too much for me. Maybe it will never happen. We're either going to have to live with nukes, or quit complaining about the cost and greenhouse gases.

lol..same speech I got at basic chemistry at ksu in the early 80's...professor was supposedly on the Blue Book project..so he said.

[cleller]

lol..same speech I got at basic chemistry at ksu in the early 80's...professor was supposedly on the Blue Book project..so he said.

We may not have solved our energy problems yet, but at least we've figured out how to sculpt a human body, electronically control its voice, and all aspects of its appearance, then transmit its image to every corner of the world instantly on a pocket phone.
Such accomplishment, and then the humans we choose for this medium are like Kim Kardashian.

[8timechamps]

I'm going to create, and sell little water wheels that you put in your toilet. Turn your urine into free energy. Now, if I can get my fart collection rig up and running, I'm going off the grid baby!

[jkjsooner]

I just stumbled on this today. Pretty cool idea.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

It uses a fusion reaction as a proton source. The waste from a normal fission reactor is bombarded by these protons to 1) extract more energy from the waste material and 2) render it less radioactive.

At least that's my understanding. The key here is that the fusion reactor does not have to have a net energy gain as it is only used as a proton source.