Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AmericaUnited

I agree with you.
"This country needs to attack the energy problem with the same determination and resources as building the A bomb (Manhattan Project) or putting a man on the moon (Apollo Project)."

And the goal should be SUSTAINABLE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Meaning, create an energy-transportation complex for the next 100 years that is ecomically sound, environmentally benign, and ensures we avoid the political and economic costs of depdency on foreign sources of energy.

You ideas are all sound, but on nukes
... but the number is 400 nuclear power plants, not 100.

20% of our electricity is generated by nuclear energy with 104 power plants.
We should make it 80%. Build 80% of our electricity power generation from nukes,
this takes coal out of most of generation, reducing global warming impact and pollution. This also frees up some coal for syn-gas.

The author basically pans hydrogen as a non-solution - CORRECT - and points to ethanol and methanol as the answer.
Partially corect: We can get diversity in fuel sources by using bio-deisel, ethanol and coal syn-gas. These arent cheap. Cheaper may be to rely on domestic oil and gas...

but then we are stuck with the mathematics of 20 million barrels a day of consumption and only 6 million barrels a day of production. The author calls on huge agricultural movement here, to produce 4 times what we produce in food.

More practical in my view is moving a large part of our transport energy to plug-in hybrids. These can reduce our use of gasoline by 2/3rds, by using electricity (generated via nuclear power) to get us there. Then, using bio-based fuels like ethanol mixes we get a further reduction.

WE need to think of the solutions as complementary and not competing. In other words, wind power, nuclear, drill more, ANWR, ethanol, hybrids, etc. ALL OF THEM can play a role.

We are 12 million barrels a day in hock to foreign oil. ALL of these alternatives can play a role.


50 posted on 01/31/2006 10:44:34 AM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: WOSG
Excellent points in post number 50.
57 posted on 01/31/2006 11:15:48 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: WOSG
We can get diversity in fuel sources by using bio-deisel, ethanol and coal syn-gas. These arent cheap. Cheaper may be to rely on domestic oil and gas...

but then we are stuck with the mathematics of 20 million barrels a day of consumption and only 6 million barrels a day of production. The author calls on huge agricultural movement here, to produce 4 times what we produce in food.

There's research going on at UNH for producing biodiesel from algae in big farms in the middle of the Arizona desert - also on breeding algae strains for maximum lipid production, etc.

74 posted on 01/31/2006 12:38:42 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: WOSG
You are correct. The most feasible progress we can make on the energy dilemma is nuclear for power and combinations of (1) syngas from coal and natural gas and (2) alcohols for liquid fuels.

The dangers of nuclear power and its waste are grossly overblown and the conversion of coal and natural gas to liquid fuels is now economical, as is the use of alcohols.
134 posted on 02/02/2006 8:12:10 PM PST by gleneagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson