Question: Energy Independence. Is it a myth foisted upon the public?

[Larry]

Nuclear is last decades technology. Building nuclear plants takes time. There is even a limited number of companies that make the required parts, and they are already over worked so even w/o the red tape issues, you'd have issues getting them built. If we are smart about investment and encouraging advances in effeciency and new approaches, there wouldn't be much demand before them before you could get very many nuclear power plants built.

I'm not saying some new ones wouldn't be built, but starting a plan doing what France did NOW would be stupid. It be like starting anything else in terms of a long-term plan based on 1970s technology.

You do realize that what you're saying is that, to you, Nuclear isn't an acceptable technology, because it works, right now?

[GibbsFactor]

This is a good point about China. Right now they are still developing, and at a crazy rate. It's obviously much cheaper for them to use older technologies that are not energy efficient. So for everything that we can cut in terms of fossil fuel consumption, coal use, etc, China is increasing consumption to replace it. The thing with China, however, is that they don't have to deal with the the ineffective government that we do. If the US decided to pass a law that mandated only "clean coal" technology, it would first take several years to pass the law, then as much as 1-2 decades to implement.

China could do the whole process in a fraction of the time. Day 1- Decide that all plants in the country need to use clean coal technology. Give all the companies 6 months to start to implement this technology. Mandate that they all have to use it within 2 years. And it would happen.

I was discussing the energy and fuel consumption in China with my professor a couple weeks ago, and he gave me an example of China working to clean up the environment/use less energy. He was in Beijing one year, and all the city buses were diesel. They all emitted ridiculous amounts of dirty exhaust. At some point in the next year the government decided they could not have that. When he returned the next year, EVERY single bus ran on natural gas. Amazing what you can do when you don't have to deal with democratic processes.

Yeah, as long as all of those "day one" decisions are the right one.

[buenosdiaz]

question even if it isnt the "solution" and in the end is a joke

what objection is there to perpetuating a system that creates jobs, new infrastructure etc.

[deejaydana]

The other thing our politicians have done in the area of energy is to conflate terrorism and oil (or energy). We actually get about ONLY 10% (or a bit more) of our oil from the Persian Gulf. If we take an isolationist stance in this regard does it mean we buy none also from Africa, Venezula, Colombia and other terror regimes? It's faulty logic. We'll buy it where we get the right price. Hence, no "energy independence" Just my take.

[PeterMP]

The stats I'm mentioning related to ethanol haven't changed, they're up to date. I don't think the media or politicians portray it honesty relative to its many drawbacks. Maybe it has to do with the farm subsidies being pushed their way.

Eh, then I'm going to see a link where they produced those numbers because on some rough math I've done based on this study, I think they are wrong.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/464.long

[deejaydana]

question even if it isnt the "solution" and in the end is a joke

what objection is there to perpetuating a system that creates jobs, new infrastructure etc.

On the face of it that's a decent question but the truth is a bit more complicated. You can't create in an instant, or even a decade or two, a new energy source. Energy is completely market driven.

[PeterMP]

Your argument above can be applied to the other alt sources just as easily. That is, they take time and legality before they're functioning. My point on nuclear, and I'm not saying it in the sense that it would be an exclusive source, is that it is still much more efficient then all other sources at this point in our evolution (of course the risks are well, nuclear).

Not really. The technology for producting ethanol or hydrogen via engineered photosynthetic organisms is much newer and has much more up side as a result. They certainly don't have issues with respect to limits on ability to build.

[GibbsFactor]

Not really. The technology for producting ethanol or hydrogen via engineered photosynthetic organisms is much newer and has much more up side as a result.

What's that do to our food source?

[Larry]

What's that do to our food source?

Not necessarily anything.

I think that at least one of the technologies he posted about, previously, involved using bio-engineered algae, which "ate" sunlight and water, and excreted Hydrogen and Oxygen.

[PeterMP]

Why couldn't we improve upon the technology? Make it more efficient and safe? Incorporate other technologies into it. Perfect it.

Well, we're trying. There are things like this:

http://www.pppl.gov/

But that isn't what anybody is talking about doing (Coraigh says the technology for things like that is pretty far out in terms of real operation energy production).

The plants are safer today, but realistically in the end you have a nuclear plant that makes nuclear waste. There's not much you can do about that.

[GibbsFactor]

Not necessarily anything.

I think that at least one of the technologies he posted about, previously, involved using bio-engineered algae, which "ate" sunlight and water, and excreted Hydrogen and Oxygen.

Well I like that! We could sit them on top of reservoirs.

[PeterMP]

What's that do to our food source?

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

"2008 - Anastasios Melis studying solar-to-chemical energy conversion efficiency in tlaR mutants of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, achieved 25 % efficiency out of a theoretical maximum of 30%"

http://www.freshpatents.com/Designer-organisms-for-photosynthetic-production-of-ethanol-from-carbon-dioxide-and-water-dt20080724ptan20080176304.php

"The present invention provides a revolutionary photosynthetic ethanol production technology based on designer transgenic plants, algae, or plant cells. The designer plants, designer algae, and designer plant cells are created such that the endogenous photosynthesis regulation mechanism is tamed, and the reducing power (NADPH) and energy (ATP) acquired from the photosynthetic water splitting and proton gradient-coupled electron transport process are used for immediate synthesis of ethanol (CH3CH2OH) directly from carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O)."

Heck even:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

"He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil."

By bugs they mean bacteria in the above quote.

**EDIT***

I'll point out that the first quote is a big deal. The high 20s, low 30s are a thresh-hold where this really starts to work in terms of energy production.

**EDIT 2***

Sorry, got that wrong the high teens low 20s is where this starts to work in terms of energy production.

[GibbsFactor]

Well, we're trying. There are things like this:

http://www.pppl.gov/

But that isn't what anybody is talking about doing (Coraigh says the technology for things like that is pretty far out in terms of real operation energy production).

The plants are safer today, but realistically in the end you have a nuclear plant that makes nuclear waste. There's not much you can do about that.

Did I read somewhere that France's halflife was 20 years?

[GibbsFactor]

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

"2008 - Anastasios Melis studying solar-to-chemical energy conversion efficiency in tlaR mutants of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, achieved 25 % efficiency out of a theoretical maximum of 30%"

http://www.freshpatents.com/Designer-organisms-for-photosynthetic-production-of-ethanol-from-carbon-dioxide-and-water-dt20080724ptan20080176304.php

"The present invention provides a revolutionary photosynthetic ethanol production technology based on designer transgenic plants, algae, or plant cells. The designer plants, designer algae, and designer plant cells are created such that the endogenous photosynthesis regulation mechanism is tamed, and the reducing power (NADPH) and energy (ATP) acquired from the photosynthetic water splitting and proton gradient-coupled electron transport process are used for immediate synthesis of ethanol (CH3CH2OH) directly from carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O)."

Heck even:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

"He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil."

By bugs they mean bacteria in the above quote.

**EDIT***

I'll point out that the first quote is a big deal. The high 20s, low 30s are a thresh-hold where this really starts to work in terms of energy production.

All sounds good. I heard of the bugs, that's wild.

I'm just against massive crops taking up land for food crops.

[PeterMP]

What's that do to our food source?

Even ethanol from plants by the old method has come a long why (which is why I think his data is wrong and I gave the link to the paper earlier in the thread). Cellulosic ethanol production technology has come along way in the last 2-3 years and is now an energy effecient method of producing energy.

That means ethanol from the parts of the crops we DO NOT eat. We're talking energy from corn husk.

[Larry]

Did I read somewhere that France's halflife was 20 years?

Yeah, but we keep saving them.

(Seriously, folks. I'm here all week.)

[PeterMP]

You do realize that what you're saying is that, to you, Nuclear isn't an acceptable technology, because it works, right now?

Yes, I understand that, but if you were STARTING (which is really where we are) to talk about putting a new communication system in place in the early-to-mid 1980s and decided to base it on the old land-line based communication system because at the time that's what worked, you'd look pretty stupid right now.

If we could start throwing up nuke plants tomorrow, my tune would be slightly different, but that isn't going to happen.

[PeterMP]

Did I read somewhere that France's halflife was 20 years?

Halflife for what?

[GibbsFactor]

Yeah, but we keep saving them.

(Seriously, folks. I'm here all week.)

I laughed.

[Larry]

Remembering a section from a short by either Niven or Pournelle:

The Russians have a novel solution for nuclear waste: They liquefy the waste, then pump it into abandoned oil wells. Their reasoning seams sound: After all, the oil stayed there for millions of years. However, some people doubt their sincerity: All of the oil wells they use for this program are in Poland.

[Larry]

Yes, I understand that, but if you were STARTING (which is really where we are) to talk about putting a new communication system in place in the early-to-mid 1980s and decided to base it on the old land-line based communication system because at the time that's what worked, you'd look pretty stupid right now.

If we could start throwing up nuke plants tomorrow, my tune would be slightly different, but that isn't going to happen.

Yeah, you're right.

It's much more efficient to invest in technology which you already know in advance is going to work.

Unfortunately, while we do know that cellular technology works, the same can't be said of the "alternative" technologies.

(Although I do agree with you: Those links you're providing sure do look promising.)

[PeterMP]

Yeah, you're right.

It's much more efficient to invest in technology which you already know in advance is going to work.

Unfortunately, while we do know that cellular technology works, the same can't be said of the "alternative" technologies.

(Although I do agree with you: Those links you're providing sure do look promising.)

My point is that we do know they work. We know that cellulosic ethanol is now energy effecient. That's the link I linked earlier to an actual scientific paper. That came out in 2008 so is new. It is very likely that some simple things in terms of even plant breeding it will make it better. That isn't even very hard (we've increased food production by plant breeding a lot over the last couple of decades by plant breeding. We don't probably want to "re-breed our corn plants, but for things like switchgrass, why not?)

We know that hydrogen production from algea is now energy effecient. Hopefully, it will become even more so in terms of the algea and related processes in the near future.

The other things are little further out, but we have two good technologies now. Will they replace oil? No. Can they create a situation over the next 10 years or so where oil has real competition? Absolutely.

[twa]

Peter has the costs come down,or reasonably expected to?

I agree they are doing some amazing things,but in the end the cost is critical.

[PeterMP]

Peter has the costs come down,or reasonably expected to?

I agree they are doing some amazing things,but in the end the cost is critical.

Cost is a bit of a misrepresentation. The problem becomes existing facilities. Oil does and will continue to have an advantage because the infrastructure is already built.

The two I talked about above are currently theoritically economically energetically effecient (the cellulosic ethanol thing is sure thing; the algea hydrogen thing is based on lab studies so you'd have to scale up, which isn't a sure thing, but at least very likely).

The problem is even for cellulosic ethanol, you still need to build ethanol refineries.

Here's a story on the big oil companies jumping in with money to build the refineries:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500538913818241.html

Like I said, the hydrogen needs to be scaled up and really has just been demonstrated at the lab scale, but that is going to require even further cost in terms of infra-structure.

In terms of energy out put/dollar, it isn't enough to match oil/gas, with the infrastructure needed, you have to beat it.

Personally, I think the oil companies are genuises. They let prices go up, suck money into alt. energy, and then pull the rug out.

I'd guess right about now, few to nobody (except the oil companies) are putting money into alt. energy (check out the stock profile of a company like SPWRA over the last 2 years or so).

[IHOPSkins]

Hydrogen Cars with Solar Powerd Hydro Re-fueling?