Bush's energy agenda

[The Hidden One]

Well first off I have to say it has its flaws and it doesn't. One good thing is we SHOUDN'T rely so much on foreign fuels but make more USA based power plants so we don't have to spend so much money. And using nuclear power is also good because it doesn't have as many downsides to it as fossil fuels did.

 

 

Downsides

 

Relyung more and more on oil for gasoline and power is going to increase the rising enviromental effects on our earth. Now I'm not an enviromentilast but I think we should rely more on ethanol fuels and hybrid cars.

 

Oh and for those who don't know Ethanol fuel is where you ferment corn or other crops and you make a fuel out of it. I think it actually sells in the Mid-West for 1.50 a gallon or so.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Here's a revoultionary idea for the USA: Use less energy. Don't buy SUVs. Don't drive a five-seat car all by yourself to work instead of car-pooling. Don't leave your TV on stand-by at night. And so on, and so fourth. Conserve, already. Why?

 

Because the US has 5% of the world's population, but 50% of the world' CO2 emissions. The Bush regime's lightening of CO2 regulations doesn't help matters either. It sure gets him some precious votes from his the industry producing CO-2 by the tonnes, but I don't think Mother Earth is too happy.

 

As for reliance on foreign oil (emphasis on "foreign"), I agree, but mostly because I feel it's ridiculous that Americans have to buy oil from the terrorist regime that the House of Saud is. It's almost like the Jews buying oil from Facist Italy, if you know what I mean.

 

Atomic power is a whole debate in itself, but I'd go for solar power, atomic power, and hydro-electric power.

[swphreak]

Did anyone see The Daily Show's Energy Plan segment? That was priceless. He goes from talking about getting off fossile fuels to... coal research...

 

As for Nuclear Power, I really don't have a problem with it. Three Mile Islands is nothing compared to Chernobyl. The thing that's going to slow the process of getting a new Nuclear Power plant built is NIMBY.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I'd go for solar power, atomic power, and hydro-electric power.

 

I agree with all but Hydro-electric, and I'd replace it with windmills.

 

Hydro-electric dams have devastating ecological effects on the rivers they are working.

 

The local environmental aspects of any damming project are well documented. Dams hold back sediments that rivers carry, which causes the river to erode the downstream channel and banks, in an effort to regain its sediment load. This damage can extend tens or hundreds of kilometers. Dams also impact the flow of the river, reducing overall volume and changing seasonal variation. A river’s estuary, where fresh water meets the sea, is a particularly rich ecosystem. The alteration of the flows reaching estuaries because of dams and diversions is a major cause of the precipitous decline of sea fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, the Black and Caspian Seas, California’s San Francisco Bay, the Eastern Mediterranean and others. Changes in the physical habitat and hydrology of rivers are implicated in 93% of freshwater fauna declines in North America.*

 

 

 

 

* International Rivers Network (IRN), http://www.irn.org/index.asp?id=/basics/impacts.html

[The Hidden One]

I don't think wind power would be that effective but Hydro-Electricity does have a lot of enviromental facters.

 

But I'd still go with Hrdro-Electricity.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by The Hidden One

I don't think wind power would be that effective .

 

Unfounded hypothesis. Wind power can be very effective, particularly with the introduction of 5 Megawatt turbines.

[kipperthefrog]

What about fussion? can someone tell me more bout fussion? I'm sure it is well down the road of time.

 

 

Untill then, solar power on the every roof of evedry house and solar power plants. windmills on every house and windmill feilds to back them up. followes by nuclear power. When neccicary. People encuraged to conserve.

 

Edit:

 

I heard a long time ago that a family is living in a solar house. they have solar panels on their roofs. They have to turn off lights when they leave the room, etc...

 

They consider themselves pioneers.

[ET Warrior]

a windmill on a house would do little to nothing as far as energy production is concerned. It would of course produce NO power if the wind weren't blowing, and for them to be reasonably sized enough that they wouldn't create the same noise as having an interstate passing over your home they wouldn't be able to generate enough energy when the wind WAS blowing to run more than...a toaster. For one slice of bread.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

Hydro-electric dams have devastating ecological effects on the rivers they are working.

 

And they don't even reduce greenhouse gas emission.

 

Why not? Well, here's the deal: Dams flood very large areas upstream during the times of the year where they gather their water reserves.

 

This kills off a wide belt of plant life which then rots, generating methane. Then, when the dam uses the water, it leaves a belt of dry land which plants then invade.

 

The invading plants consume carbon dioxide but later the same year the area gets flooded again and the plants are broken down into methane.

 

So the net effect of a dam is to convert carbon dioxide into methane. And methane is a couple of orders of magnitude more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

 

Some people (can't for the life of me remember who, though) have added up the numbers recently, and arrived at the conclusion that fossile-fuel power plants contribute less to global warming than hydro-electric plants pr. J produced.

 

and for them to be reasonably sized enough that they wouldn't create the same noise as having an interstate passing over your home they wouldn't be able to generate enough energy when the wind WAS blowing to run more than...a toaster.

 

Not quite true. Modern windmills are very quiet. This combined with the fact that they are also very high means that the noise that reaches the ground below them is roughly equivealent to the traffic noise on a well-travelled road.

 

No, the principal problem with plastering cities over with windmills is - apart from the fact that it would be an eyesore - that cities are lousy wind environments.

 

Solar cells on the rooftops, on the other hand...

 

In some places, tidal power might be applicable (particularily certain places in France where the coast is steep and rocky and high tide raises the water level by as much as 5 m. But that will only work in very specific places.

 

Another option that shows some promise is diffussion power: You take a major river (the Nile, the Colorado) and redirect part of the water running out of the delta. You pump this freshwater into a tank connected by a semi-penetrable membrane to another tank into which you pump salty sea water. The trick is that the membrane allows for water to pass, but not salt. Osmosis will then cause the fresh water to move to the saltwater tank, diluting the salt concentration and increasing pressure. The high-pressure water can then be sent through a turbine producing power.

 

It will probably be some time before we see this tech on any kind of industrial scale, but the possibility of building such plants (with a positive net output) has recently been demonstrated.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Hydro-electric dams have devastating ecological effects on the rivers they are working.

I did not specify hydro-electric dams. You can get hydro-electric power out of water falls, too, with a much lower environmental effect. You just take a water fall, put it in pipes, and lead the water trough one or more turbines.

 

In some places, tidal power might be applicable (particularily certain places in France where the coast is steep and rocky and high tide raises the water level by as much as 5 m. But that will only work in very specific places.

Except nearly every wave power facility built is destroyed by the waves (Science Illustrated article).

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I did not specify hydro-electric dams. You can get hydro-electric power out of water falls, too, with a much lower environmental effect. You just take a water fall, put it in pipes, and lead the water trough one or more turbines.

 

Touché. It might be dumb to put it all in a pipe, but some of it could probably be used that way.

 

Except nearly every wave power facility built is destroyed by the waves (Science Illustrated article).

 

The keyword you seem to have missed is currently, as in 'currently built'. With advances in materials science, it is entirely possible that tidal power could become viable, if only as a supplement to other, more widely appliccable sources.

[toms]

Its the usual "bury your head in the sand" type of policy we have come to expect.

 

Fair enough, completely changing the way your entire country's energy is produced would cause major upheaval... but ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away doesn't help.

 

The signs coming out of the middle east are that oil is drying up (even witht he newly opened up Iraqi fields), and the size of potential deposits in alaska etc.. aren't in any way going to keep up with the increase in global demand.

 

It would therefore make sense to start moving (slowly if need be) towards (a) encouraging people and businesses to reduce their energy needs and (b) researching and creating alternative power sources. Rather than trying to protect your mates existing business interests.

 

Fuel cell and wind powered technologies aren't that efficient yet... but that is cos there is no demand. Put in a demand and pretty soon efficiency would increase.

 

I can't remember the exact figures, but aparently covering 5% of america's farm land with wind farms would produce 95% of the US's energy needs. Of course, the problem with wind farms is consistency, and the difficulty of storing power for when the wind isn't blowing. But i'm sure that if it started getting taken seriously and implemented then scientists would find ways around those problems.

 

Heck.. make 0.5% of america's farmland (which probably isn't in use anyway) into wind farms and reduce the usage by 10% and its a start. And less permanently damaging than trashing national parks or other countries in the search for oil. It will even make the oil we do have last longer.

 

The US's situation as a global leech of energy and a global producer of waste just simply isn't sustainable. Eventually someone in the US government is going to have to have the courage to admit that and do something about it.

[The Hidden One]

Wind powers only downside is that not many places does the wind blow string enought to produce power.

 

But finding alternate sources of energy is a must right now or they'll be disastrous effects.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by The Hidden One

Wind powers only downside is that not many places does the wind blow string enought to produce power..

 

But there are still plenty of places. Coastlines for example are PRIME places for a windmill farm. The winds blowing off the ocean are quite strong and frequent.

 

There are also plenty of places in Wyoming, and Colorado where wind is frequent and strong. (the Chinook winds of Boulder Canyon in Colorado are strong enough to literally kock a person on their ass even when they're expecting it)

 

Granted, these winds don't blow ALL the time, but if you set up a network of turbines feeding into one power plant you could have the other windmills going even while the others are still.

[SkinWalker]

Overall, Bush's energy bill is a smokescreen and an attempt to appeal to the concientious citizen who is worried about the effect fossil fuels have on the environment while simultaneously appealing to the average person concerned about rising energy costs. In otherwords, he's attempting to appeal to us all.

 

But the BS is left out of his rhetoric about switching to a Hydrogen Economy, etc. What Bush & Co. don't say is that creating hydrogen in sufficient quantities is problematic because that requires energy. You need energy to make an energy source. Hydrogen exists in abundance in nature, but it is typically involved in relationships that aren't easily broken.

 

You can find H in Liquid Petroleum and Natural Gas, but to separate it from LP and NG takes energy. LP and NG can be piped to fuel cells at static sites (homes, businesses, etc.) and the process can be done there, with the resulting wastes being water and heat (energy), but this necessitates the continued reliance on fossil fuels (LP & NG).

 

You can separate H from water, but that requires massive energy and I've seen estimates that the efficiency is as poor as 1%, which means it takes 100 times more energy to create useable H than what you get in return.

 

You can also get H from reactions with Sulfuric Acid and certain metals, but there are some risks involved. But this would seem to be the best option for the individual experimenting with a home-fuel cell, since H isn't readily available but sulfuric acid and other components are. There was even some talk about engineering an algae that creates H in its waste, but I don't remember where I read/heard that.

 

The problems with switching to an H-Economy aren't trivial. It will take much fossil fuel energy to create useable H and will be quite some time before sufficient H exists that it can be used as an energy source for the continued creation of H.

 

Better alternatives in the mean time would seem to be artificially inflating the cost of petroleum at the pump (while providing subsidies for the trucking industry to ensure goods get distributed without added cost to the consumer, thus preventing inflation); using the profits of the inflation ($4/gal. at least) to fund and subsidize research into alternatives; push manufacturers to provide hybrid cars that get significantly more mileage to the gallon.

 

The effect will be that people will drive less; they'll use smaller automobiles more frequently; buy fewer gas-guzzlers; and traffic and parking will be less frustrating without a million Escalades, Navigators, Yukons, etc. at the hands of soccer mom's with penis envy. Hell, even AmTrack wouldn't need government subsidies anymore (which were cut, by the way).

 

But one thing that has to be remembered in all the alternative energy ideas is that there are caveats with them all:

 

1) Wind power isn't all that efficient, particularly when you consider the amount of resistance applied with the length of transmission lines (but is effective for the rural individual). It also requires the manufacture of parts, use of copper, etc. -all of which require energy to manufacture and has to be factored into the equation of energy returns. Indeed, the wastes (chemical and mineral) involved in the manufacturing process get ignored as well.

 

2) Solar energy requires the manufacture of silicon wafers and other chemically/minerally intensive parts as well as petroleum (the plastics an polymers associated with the housing and lensing of the photovoltaic cells). It needs copper (for the circuits); wastes include acids and silicon manufacturing wastes, etc. Again, it takes energy to create them and they aren't all that efficient when you consider nocturnal and weather related issues, space for their application, resistance of lengthy transmission lines, etc. But - they are efficient for the home owner to supplement electricity, heat water, etc.

 

You can go on, and on... applying many of these same caveats to other alternative forms of energy. That's not to say that they shouldn't be explored or even implemented.... I just think we shouldn't ignore the problems that they do present and find it ironic that these methods often receive much praise from the environmental extremists who conveniently ignore their associated wastes and pollution in the manufacturing processes.

 

I offer this advice for all those interested in conserving energy: find ways to use less energy.

 

Ride a bike, walk, carpool, commute via public transportation, etc. Start by setting aside one day a week where you vow to yourself not to drive anywhere. If it goes well, make it two days and avoid it where possible. Plan trips to town/store/etc. to coincide and make the most out of your gas mileage.

 

Unscrew every incandescent light bulb in your home and replace it with a flourescent one from WalMart. The energy savings are significant and the lifetime of these are much better than incandescants.

 

Weather proof your home. Add insulation to the attic and basement. Use storm windows. Upgrade windows if you don't have them. Seek out drafts in the house and plug them. Change or clean filters often. Only use heat/air when conditions are unbearable... better to watch TV from under a blanket with your intimate one anyway Use ceiling fans and open windows in the Spring and Fall. Get a programmable thermostat and follow the energy use guidelines that come with it.

 

etc., etc.

 

If we all become better energy users, we'll put less strain on resources, pollution will decrease and costs will go down. Plus, we'll have more time to figure out efficient and effective alternatives. In spite of Bush's nonsense.

[toms]

The more they are used the more efficient they will become. The same as everything else.

 

I would have thought silicon was pretty plentiful... but i'm not really an expert.

 

I don't advocate simply making everything wind or sun powered... but increasing the percentage of energy that is generated that way would mean that

 

(a) Fluctuating oil prices would have less impact

(b) Fossil Fuel Resources would last longer

© OPEC would have less bargaining power

(d) Efficiency of the new systems would improve over time

(e) Less waste products would be produced.

[swphreak]

All these suggestions are great except there is one problem. The United States, as a country, is incredibly lazy. If Americans don't have an incentive to do something, it's not going to get done.

 

I agree that we should increase gas prices, and get people to be more conservative towards fossile fuels.

[toms]

YOu don't have to increase gas prices as usch, just realise that when you are complaining about the high price you have to pay for gas, you are still paying a lot less than most other western countries.

 

I doubt any government would have the guts to implement it, but a transport workig group over here recommended that road tax was calculated automatically based on usage (via satellites and GPS) so those that drove a lot paid more, those that drove at off peak times paid less, those that drove in the country paid less... etc...

 

If it wasn't for my concerns about the privacy implications i'd think it was a great idea.

 

The congestion charge in london has seriously cut down the number of people who drive into the city centre... and sped things up for those that di drive (and the busses).

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I'd like to remind everyone that nuclear reactors only last for 40-60 years before they have to be dismantled, which is a very time-consuming and costly process. They produce enormous amounts of waste, too.

[ET Warrior]

According to my roommate who took a physics course about energy and the environment this last semester, a nuclear power plant produces less hazardous waste than a coal burning power plant.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I'd like to remind everyone that nuclear reactors only last for 40-60 years before they have to be dismantled, which is a very time-consuming and costly process. They produce enormous amounts of waste, too.

 

Assuming that you don't just lock the door, paint the place green and hang a sign on the door saying: "May not be entered until May 5005"

 

:=)

 

Seriously, though, the biggest problem with nuclear power is not the waste products: It's the fact that any reasonably sized civilian nuclear program can be converted to military use with a minimum of efford.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by StarWarsPhreak

I agree that we should increase gas prices, and get people to be more conservative towards fossile fuels.

Some stations are doing artificial inflation.

[jon_hill987]

Originally posted by kipperthefrog

What about fussion? can someone tell me more bout fussion? I'm sure it is well down the road of time.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7361&feedId=online-news_rss20