breeder reactors are a necessary technology if we are to survive as a civilized people.

"minority. Only a great green wave of public outcry—and calls to Congress—can now save us, within the next few days, from yet another lethal, expensive, global-warmed bout with atomic"
What the hell are you talking about Harvey? I don't see any "greem wave" in America, get my gas under $3.00 a gallon and make my six pac affordable and I am a happy camper. If it takes nuke power then so be it-thats what I see in America. Besides that the U.S. is a miniuser of nuke power compared to the rest of the world, nuclear stocks are doing fine thank you.

the only way nuclear power even comes close to being competitve is by externalizing its true costs.

the history surrounding the paley commission is similar to the way general motors, the tire companies and standard oil teamed up to destroy municipally-owned streetcar companies, making us a nation of commuters---and their captive consumers.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama think there's a possibility of "safe nuclear" power and are willing to waste billions on research to that end rather than on clean renewables like wind and solar. John Edwards is against nuclear and coal energy. That's one of many reasons I'm supporting him by volunteering for his campaign. Most people don't realize Edwards has been endorsed by Friends of the Earth. Bonnie Raitt and Jackson Browne will be appearing with Edwards in my home town in NH next week, and I presume this will be part of their message.

Mr. Wasserman:

I forget the math (too many 000,s), but we produce something like 2.9 million gwh from fossil fuels in the US each year. The largest nukes the French are now installing should each produce something like 10,000 gwh per year. It would take about 200 of these plant to replace coal generation, about 290 to replace all fossil electric generation in the US.

The time to start was 30 years ago. The French - American light water reactor technology is proven with 100+ reactors in the US and about 60 in France. In some cases they could be built near existing coal fired plants and use the same water, utilities and connections to the power grid. Solar will not be ready to replace the truly colossal amount of power we now generate until its too late, if ever.

The next generation of nuclear power using fast neutrons will burn the U235 sitting around after U238 was extracted, and will also burn the transuranics remainig in the spent fuel from today's reactors. The reactors will almost "breed" more fuel than they consume, and Ike's old dream of almost free energy could come true.

Argonne National lab has been piloting this technology for some time. The French took a stab at building a fast neutron reactor, but between politics and the technology being not quite ready, they shut it down.

The time is now. The choices are:
1. Replace fossil fuel electric with nukes ASAP, and later replace nukes with "Gen IV" nukes. Take advantage of solar, hydro... as much as possible. Also superinsulate houses and ration gasoline...

2. Go to draconian energy rationing with electric power turned off much of the time. Almost completely shut down air travel...essentially shut down the economy execept for the most basic food production and distribution. Winterize most homes and force people to live in several family groups. On and on.

3. Business as usual and watch civilization perish. Maybe the rest of the world will give the US a free ride on this, but we will end up the last fossil fuel dinosaur on the planet.

Mexico doesn't have quite the NIMBY problem we have. Maybe we could import our energy from nukes built there. Canada has the water resources, and it would be better than turning Alberta into the next West Virginia. The Chinese could finance it and a French-American consortium could provide turn-key reactors.

So, we don't need to ban nuclear power. We need a crash program to get it on line ASAP. 10 big reactors per year for 30 years minimum. And the next generation of nuclear power absolutely must work.

bbr-001,

Hear hear!

I am getting quite fed up with this completely irrational, technophobic, superstition-laden, opposition to nuclear power. These same critics no doubt drive cars, fly on planes, jaywalk across busy streets, and no doubt don't object at all getting injected or irrdiated with radioisotopes for various medical diagnostics or treatments.

While wind and solar have a strong contribution to make, they cannot be the basis for a continuous reliable supply. As is normal for around here, I haven't seen the sun in at least two weeks, and there is not a single non-cloudy day forecast for at least another week. There's also not been more than a few hours of significant wind either.

Hazmat, what about the global "externalized costs" of fossil fuel power? And what about that economically intangable cost of mass extinction - including possibly our own?

We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions. (Briefing: Climate change - Nuclear not the answer.)

The Nuclear Age began in July 1945 when the US tested their first nuclear bomb near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A few years later, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched his "Atoms for Peace" Programme at the UN amid a wave of unbridled atomic optimism.

But as we know there is nothing "peaceful" about all things nuclear. More than half a century after Eisenhower's speech the planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste. This legacy is beginning to be recognised for what it truly is.

Things are moving slowly in the right direction. In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.

The risks from nuclear energy are real, inherent and long-lasting.

Safety: No reactor in the world is inherently safe. All operational reactors have inherent safety flaws, which cannot be eliminated by safety upgrading. Highly radioactive spent fuel requires constant cooling. If this fails, it could lead to a catastrophic release of radioactivity. They are also highly vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage, including terrorist attack.

Waste: From the moment uranium is mined nuclear waste on a massive scale is produced. There is no secure, risk free way to store nuclear waste. No country in the world has a solution for high-level waste that stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. The least damaging option at this current time is for waste to be stored above ground, in dry storage at the site of origin, but this option also presents major challenges and the threats.

Weapons proliferation: The possession of nuclear weapons by the US, Russia, France, the UK and China has encouraged the further proliferation of nuclear technology and materials. Every state that has a nuclear power capability, has the means to obtain nuclear material usable in a nuclear weapon. Basically this means that the 44 nuclear power states could become 44 nuclear weapons states. Many nations that have active commercial nuclear power programs, began their research with two objectives - electricity generation and the option to develop nuclear weapons. Also nuclear programs based on reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel have dramatically increased the risk of proliferation as the creation of more plutonium, means more nuclear waste which in turn means more materials available for the creation of dirty bombs.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

John Edwards is in favor of the racist, fascist, trillion dollar War on Drugs and people.

You don't need coal or nuclear for your energy needs. Try a resource that requires no oil or coal to produce. The answer? HEMP !

Wow, the nuke industry lobbyists certainly got out here early with their pro-nuke comments.

As the local anti-nuke nuclear engineer, all I can say is 'what nonsense'.

Some basic facts. As an engineer, I feel I could design on paper a safe reactor. Then you introduce real people and the sort of things you find anytime you have to rely on an organization of thousands and thousands of people to do something. That can never be perfect.

An unfortunately, the price of not being perfect with nuclear power is disaster.

There are all sorts of arguments why that on a nice typical normal day, you'd actually would probably be healthier living next to a nuke plant than a coal plant. The one that shocks most people is that on a nice, normal, typical day, a coal plant releases more radioactivity than a nuke plant. (their are radioactive carbon isotopes in coal ... see Carbon-14 dating for another use of this fact).

The problem is, what about when its not a nice, normal day. What happens when shit happens. And as someone who's been around engineering for twenty years (not nuke though), like most veteran engineers I'm a believer in Murphy's law and feel that Murphy must have been a genius. Basically, shit will happen.

If its a coal plant, you might have the plant go off line. You might get a local fire or explosion. It might make some impressive footage on the evening news, but probably no one who doesn't work at the plant would be harmed.

A nuke plant is very different. When it goes wrong, it really, really goes wrong.

So, you have to take that element of risk into account. Lets just say that were insane enough to build the 200 or so plants that the above poster says would be needed to replace coal. And that we ran them perpetually into the future, replacing them as they wore out to make this the permanent solution to burning fossil fuels for power. Given that infinite use of hundreds of plants, accidents will happen.

Most people in this country don't know how close to a disaster Three Mile Island really was.

And, even if you think TMI is the worst that could happen, look at that. The utility completely lost a reactor, and instead lots and lots of money had to be spent in a long cleanup effort that took at least a decade. Nuclear power is already completely uneconomical without massive subsidies. And that's not factoring the the periodic loss of reactors from accidents like this.

And, we still don't know what to do with nuclear wastes. Yucca Mountain is more and more of a very bad joke the more they learn about the site. What you want for a site is a place that will be geologically stable for tens of thousands of years, and also a place which can be guaranteed to be dry for that long to avoid corrosion.

Yucca Mountain sits near an earthquake fault and has been found to have groundwater deep in the areas where it was supposed to be dry. And that's the BEST they've done on finding something to do with this waste.

If we are going to invest billions and billions in subsidies into energy technology to reduce global warming, it shouldn't go to nuclear. It needs to go to solar, wind, etc.

Nice statement from bbr-001. But quite wasted on Harvey Wasserman, who has no interest in asking whether a new generation of nuclear reactors should be part of the answer to our energy and climate challenges.

For Wasserman, for Bonnie Raitt, and for most Left politicos including the ones who choose the articles and most of the readers here at CommonDreams, it is an article of faith that nuclear power is evil, dangerous, expensive and unneeded, and a matter of political commitment not to listen to any reasoned argument otherwise or to take a fresh look at the facts and reconsider their position. Nay, that would be spinelessness or worse, selling out.

Any who suggest that maybe nuclear power's risks are manageable and its downsides less than those of coal are to be branded as corporate shills, and any who stray from the antinuke faith are to be cast out of the tribe!

It's not a matter for discussion. You're on one side or the other here; you're not supposed to be looking at the issue and asking any questions. There is no truth, there are only positions. So it goes.

I'd be all for dropping consideration of nuclear power if someone can demonstrate that a solar and wind are capable of providing continuous relaible power service to all points of an area the size of the continental US. The proponensts of moving to sole reliance on wind and solar have never explained the technical aspects of how such a system would work.

Some have proposed pumped-storage hydro, but (as a civil engineer) I do know that there are far too few socially or environmentally suitable sites for it to help out very much.

I do know that over an continent-sized area, when the wind isn't blowing in some places it is blowing in other places. So, as the wind-producing weather systems move across the continent, is it technically possible or feasable to instantly and continuously shuttle sufficient amounts of power from any point to any point over a continent sized area as wind conditions and power demand changes?

What's the maximum distance that electric power can be practically transmitted?

Any EE-power distribution people out there who can answer these questions?

RE: ezeflyer December 14th, 2007 3:27 pm

Great post EZ, and I'm saving it for when these foolish proponents of nuclear power return with their invalid arguments in favor of nuke power (and return they will because large centralized power companies will bribe members of congress to bring the issue up again & again & again...ad infinitum). Instead of using our existing dwindling resources to make a transition to green energy we've been bamboozled into wasting over 50 years on the fool's errand of atomic power. I don't believe we can afford another 50 years on the failed nuclear "experiment".

Nuclear Energy Can't Solve Global Warming
By Mark Hertsgaard
The San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday 07 August 2005

"The case against nuclear power as a global warming remedy begins with the fact that nuclear-generated electricity is very expensive. Despite more than $150 billion in federal subsides over the past 60 years (roughly 30 times more than solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have received), nuclear power costs substantially more than electricity made from wind, coal, oil or natural gas. This is mainly due to the cost of borrowing money for the decade or more it usually takes to get a nuclear plant up and running.

Remarkably, this inconvenient fact does not deter industry officials from boasting that nuclear is the cheapest power available. Their trick is to count only the cost of operating the plants, not of constructing them. By that logic, a Rolls-Royce is cheap to drive because the gasoline but not the sticker price matters. The marketplace, however, sees through such blarney. As Amory Lovins, the soft energy guru who directs the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado think tank that advises corporations and governments on energy use, points out, "Nowhere (in the world) do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants." Only large government intervention keeps the nuclear option alive.

A second strike against nuclear is that it produces only electricity, but electricity amounts to only one third of America's total energy use (and less of the world's). Nuclear power thus addresses only a small fraction of the global warming problem, and has no effect whatsoever on two of the largest sources of carbon emissions: driving vehicles and heating buildings.

The upshot is that nuclear power is seven times less cost-effective at displacing carbon than the cheapest, fastest alternative - energy efficiency, according to studies by the Rocky Mountain Institute. For example, a nuclear power plant typically costs at least $2 billion. If that $2 billion were instead spent to insulate drafty buildings, purchase hybrid cars or install super-efficient light bulbs and clothes dryers, it would make unnecessary seven times more carbon consumption than the nuclear power plant would. In short, energy efficiency offers a much bigger bang for the buck. In a world of limited capital, investing in nuclear power would divert money away from better responses to global warming, thus slowing the world's withdrawal from carbon fuels at a time when speed is essential.

Mainstream environmentalists do argue that energy efficiency, solar, wind and other renewable fuels are better weapons against global warming than nuclear is. But they will fare better if they go a step further and point out that embracing nuclear is not just unnecessary but a step backward."

PJD

In these discussions why does everyone seem to minimize (or neglect to even mention) the role geothermal could have as our power source? It could easily provide more power than all other sources combined, is green, very widespread, and in limitless supply. Besides, I believe Wall Street would gladly underwrite because it is SAFE, and it wouldn't take a massive compensation/bailout as will nuclear WHEN (I didn't say IF) a catastrophic nuclear 'accident' happens.

We live in a technological society, almost world-wide, with a huge population needing electrical power.

Yes. TMI could have been a disaster. If the hydrogen exploded and popped open the reactor building, they might have needed to evacuate everyone in a triangle between Harrisburg, Philly and DC. Or at least send everyone inside for several days and hope for rain, and there might have been cancer clusters, slaughtered livestock, actinides in the Chesapeake... Sort of like Chernobyl dusting Poland and Scandinavia with al that crap.

But we face a world-wide disaster. Have to admit it probably would take too long to get a major nuclear program going. We will probably end up with severe rationing of any kind of energy from fossil fuel. Kind of like living in Iraq right now, hopefully minus the bloodshed.

Mr Smith,

Your response is exactly what I am talking about!

We don't need people breezily proposing solutions for a standpoint of little knowledge of the technical issues involved.

Well, I also have training in geology, and the areas suitable for geothermal-steam electric generation are minuscule. In the continental US, they include the Yellowstone Park area (most of it therefore off-limits), and a few locations in active volcanic areas of Northern California and Cascade Mountains. That's it. That may be helpful to Eureka, Seattle or Portland (where it is hardly needed since they have abundant hydro power). But it does Los Angeles, Chicago, New York or Atlanta no good at all.

There are other areas with low-temperature geothermal, including some areas in the mid Atlantic which could be used for winter heating - but it is practical only if there is a large population center right over the hot water source. Few areas meet this requirement.

About 80% of the energy I use in my home is required for space heating. A relatively low-tech solar heating system has been demonstrated by Drakes Landing Solar Community (www.dlsc.ca) in Alberta. With a bit more insulation and a poor-man's version of the DLSC system, I hope to all-but eliminate the use of fossil fuels to heat my home.

The most recent podcast on this site http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index.html
is of interest as it includes a short discussion of the use of microbes to turn oil deposits directly into hydrogen.

Take the money earmarked for nukes and use it to support investigations into an array of environmentally friendly alternatives and a number of effective and profitable systems would be developed much quicker than building nukes. It should have started ten years ago - or perhaps the momentum from the 1973 oil crisis should have been maintained.

I find it strange that so few people seem interested in saving money - and the planet.

The real question is what are the intentions behind the advocacy of different energy sources. Failing to look at the intentions allows a hidden class war to perpetuate, with energy policy as the weapon.

The class war shall not be discussed. So for example if someone submits a letter to the editor about the class issue behind the energy policy, i.e. something about the political power concentrated in central power plants, and dispersed with wind and solar power, the editor rejects the letter.

The class war aggressors work to keep the political power concentrated has to go on under the radar of public scrutiny.

But the people's work to keep the political power dispersed will be publicized. We advocate renewable energy sources because they minimize environmental damage but also becuase they disperse the political power, making the people more independent, so the people can think for themselves.

Nuclear power became unpopular when interests rates were 10% and oil at 15 USD per barrel. Any new technolgy has safety issues, as it did in the 60's and 70's, but those have been addressed. The ice in the arctic is melting, we can dump the nuclear waste there (joking)

Electricity from wind, right, it can work on a small scale to help out a bit in some locations, thats it. Coal and Gas are also carbon emitters and in finite supply.

Oil WILL run out someday. This is a fact. We can postpone the inevitable by using ALL known energy sources, and not hope for a miracle like a pandemic that wipes out 90% of the critters. There are 3 billion people in Asia who are using oil at a rapidly increasing rate, energy consumption will increase, rapidly, and cheap oil (100 USD/barrel) will run out sooner than you think.

Worried about the cost?. We have to borrow the money. We borrow 1 million dollar a minute. Our debt is 9 trillion. Using accepted accrual accounting standards, our government (which is the citizens)are 50+ trillion in the red, or roughly 166,000+ per person (maybe we can get the illegal aliens to share the debt?). We have 800 bases in 130 countries. Like, maybe we can afford things like health care and energy, and have bridges that don't collapse if we did not spend all the money to fight enemies we create so as to have someone to fight.

But do not fear critters, we won't need much energy in the future, in case you did not know it, our capitalists are moving out (they figured out we are broke, and although they have the same rights as the critters in the US, capital is a global citizen and does not require DHS permission to fly away and escape dealing with the consequences of a collapsing economy) . No industry or manufacturing = less energy needs. The world needs food, maybe we can all become farmers.

Solar cells and small rooftop windmills like the ones used during WWII, on our thousands of square miles of rooftops hooked up to the grid and regulated by microprocessors would obviate storage batteries and often make the meter run backwards. Combined with larger wind, wave, geothermal, small hydro and other clean alternatives as is done successfully today, imagine how much sooner we would be energy independent if these renewables were given the billions Domenici wants for nukes?

Centralization of power is concentration of wealth, the corporate monopoly game.

bbr-001: There was never any danger of a "hydrogen explosion" that would have breached the containment at TMI. This notion started with bad reporting and has since become folklore.

If nuclear power is so great, why does it need any subsidies? Maybe we should just let the market figure out the best way to do it (with no subsidies, just taxes on the pollution the various energy types cause). Fairly taxed based on pollution generated, solar and wind would become REAL economical.

The Corporatists only want the market to fix the problem if it means huge profits for them. The rest of the time they want the government to subsidize it with taxpayer money or taxpayer funded wars. Nuclear power is no solution. Look at TMI and Chernobyl. Like everything else, the odds of an incident increase as the number of reactors increase. If the hundreds of thousands killed slowly by cancer from the Russian accident had died instantly, instead of stretched out over decades and hidden from the public, it would be a lot harder to get support for building more nuclear power plants. And aside from all the inherent dangers associated with reactors and their waste, in an age of deepening water shortages, do you have any idea how many millions of gallons of water it takes per day per reactor? Solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal, conservation and efficiency is where we need to put our efforts and investments.

I'd be all for dropping consideration of nuclear power if someone can demonstrate that a solar and wind are capable of providing continuous relaible power service to all points of an area the size of the continental US.

PJD, we might need the nukes so we can leave our electric fireplaces roaring while we're away at work. The gargantuan waste of energy in the US makes a new energy policy based on current assumptions truly idiotic. We should first wipe out most of the gluttonous waste. We really only need to consume 20% of what we currently consume. Across the board. Meat, SUVs, McMansions. Get rid of most of them. Then all kinds of energy options become feasible.

We don't need any kinds of grids, not for electric, gas, water, sewage, or anything else. These are highly wasteful, destructive, and oppressive. We need local small scale cogeneration plants with the waste heat utilized in small scale industrial processes and other applications.

In such a scheme, each location may select from an array of source options that best suits it. A combination of solar-thermal, wind, biofuels, tide, geothermal. There is no need for fossil/nuke. Neither is there any need for photovoltaic or fuel cells. Conservation and efficiency keep the overall consumption down. Biofuel fired turbines and engines supplement solar/wind, and lead-acid batteries and molten salt thermal stores are used for temporary energy storage.

These approaches are feasible if we reign in the gluttony. Remember there are shifts at work - knocking out most of the 80% wastage in transportation gluttony allows for biofuels supplement for solar/wind electric.

rtdrury,

Of course we conserve, but please get realistic, a utility system subject to random power outages isn't acceptable. I keep my heat down to the minimum to keep the pipes from freezing when I'm away - or are you opposed to plumbing too? But of course, my workplace needs electricity - or do you work?

The rest of your remarks, - that we don't water, sewer or gas distribution systems, don't warrant a response except to note that small scale local utility and sanitation facilities are very inefficient, both energy wise and economically.

No US built nuclear reactors have ever had a meltdown. Chernobyl is the only real nuclear disaster to ever occur, and that could have been very easily prevented. Three Mile Island's little accident released less radiation than a chest X-Ray. So should be ban hospitals too? I mean, after all, they're obviously as dangerous as nuclear reactors.

Our nuclear reactors have always been safe, and with modern technology, they should be better than ever. Solar, wind, and hydro are all great sources of energy, but they just don't provide the power density we need. Nuclear waste can be made safe in a matter of years if the US government would allow the technology to be used. So what's it gonna be, go to nuclear power, or convert all our farmland to solar panels and increase global poverty and starvation? I mean, I suppose you could use deserts, but I'm not sure that we even have enough desert land to power the world with solar.

Nuclear is not a magic bullet. Uranium is a rare and finite resource with very destructive and energy intensive minintg processes. Oil wars, uraniun wars, what's the difference?
Have you looked at the worldwide ditribution of uranium ore deposits?

Most of the world's gold is in seawater, and with gold at $800/troy ounce, I don't see a lot of activity to go after that.

Fusion Energy device in funding limbo for two decades — dying on the vine for lack of nuclear weapons potential.

n contrast, IEC/Electric fusion devices are smaller, significantly more economical, non radioactive, has had working prototypes producing 10 kv of energy, much more likely to be a viable option, and could come to reality in about 5 - 6 years from appropriation of 200 million dollars.

http://budz.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/energy-device-in-funding-limbo-for-two-decades-dying-on-the-vine-for-lack-of-nuclear-weapons-potential/

Should Google Go Nuclear? Clean, cheap, nuclear power (no, really)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606

Radioactive Tokamak technology has received 18 billion dollars of US subsidy with 30 billion more earmarked for future development. There has never been a working prototype of ITER technology. Funding is based on theories and equations. A working model is not even anticipated for another 30 to 50 years.

In contrast, Bussard's IEC/Electric fusion devices are smaller, significantly more economical, non radioactive, has had working prototypes producing 10 kv of energy, much more likely to be a viable option, and could come to reality in about 5 - 6 years from appropriation of 200 million dollars.

This article says that you can mine uranium from seawater for about $40/kilogram or 4100 yen. That's a lot less that $200/pound. It may not factor in $100/barrel oil, depending on when it was written, but still, the availability of uranium is not the biggest issue with nuclear power.
http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/132004/appendix8.html

Hey guys: Google Argonne National Lab. Their fast neutron reactor will run on "depleted uranium" that is just sitting all over the place (when we aren't making projectiles from it). One start up charge, and the reactor will run until the components wear out in 50 - 60 years. We could actually stop uranium mining!

I'll have to check out this IEC/Electric fusion. Sounds like a hoax.

We're going for a paradigm shift here (away from corporate centralization and unaccountability and toward communitarian decisionmaking and risk sharing) and you guys are talking like a couple of awestruck teenagers ogling a brand-new 'vette.

If there's a foaming-at-the-mouth psychopath behind the wheel, does it really matter what the optimum tire pressure is?

PJD @ 4:40 pm

"I'd be all for dropping consideration of nuclear power if someone can demonstrate that a solar and wind are capable of providing continuous relaible power service to all points of an area the size of the continental US."

Here you are, PJD.

The lead author of this study
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf
claims that within 30-50 years we can meet all our energy needs from renewable, NON-nuclear sources. He estimates the cost/investment required at a mere 0.7% of household income over a 30 year period.

I also recommend you read John Blackburn's (an economist) "Solar Florida". His calculations are approximately the same.

Not just wind and solar need to be considered but methane produced from human and animal waste, from agricultural waste and from eutrophied lakes. There's also biodiesel, co-generation, heat-recovery, and good ol' conservation.

We also have the example of the Swedes to copy. Their economy is now 5th largest in the world; meanwhile, the average Swede's carbon footprint is about 1/5th the average American's. And in Vaxjo, Sweden it's down to about 1/8th
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/23/2050/

WmC,

Agreed; the swedish carbon footprint is a lot less than the US - but it is largely due to lifestyle differences - a preference for living in the city and using public transit - whicvh in turn is well funded, and when they do drive, they drive cars that would be considered unacceptably tiny and unsafe by USAns .

I have brought up such issues - notably a need to move toward car-free livins an a return to car-free urban design on a number of occasions - and it hasn't gotten much a reception among CD readers.

Came across this article in the International Herald Tribune, Bill, on the safety of Swedish nuclear power. You might find it interesting. . .and sobering.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/business/sweden.php?page=1

And if the expertise for constructing and maintaining nuclear power plants is so high tech, how do you explain things like the Vermont Yankee cooling tower collapse - totally unexpected and without cause(earthquake or other natural cause). Check out some of the links -
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2351.shtml
http://vermontdailybriefing.com/?p=750

Of the big three Dems only John Edwards has taken a strong position against nuke power.

The two triangulators, Hillary and Barack, would allow for the continuation of this all to dangerous energy source.
Mainly because of their connections to corporate lobbyists and big money interests.

RE: PJD December 14th, 2007 7:56 pm
Mr Smith,

"Your response is exactly what I am talking about! We don't need people breezily proposing solutions from (edited) a standpoint of little knowledge of the technical issues involved.

Well, I also have training in geology, and the areas suitable for geothermal-steam electric generation are minuscule."

WRONG!

I think you need to do some more research. Here is a good starting point:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/40665.pdf

Here's what I'm talking about:

"In fact, when including geothermal heat pumps (GHPs), geothermal energy is used in all 50 U.S. states today. The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Program seeks to make geothermal energy the nation's environmentally preferred baseload energy alternative.

The total resource base in the United States, both renewable and non-renewable, is very large, with an energy content of over 657,000 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BBOE), or nearly 50,000 times the annual current rate of national energy consumption."

There's also a great map at the site that shows (color coded) there are only a few small areas (one on the map) where boiling water is not accessable underground within reach of current drilling technology. Of course some areas are better, but when you look at the map you will see an unlimited green source of almost limitless power lies virtually just below our feet. Since the best geothermal technology uses a 'closed system' the problem of water polution is also negated.

We need to start funding programs in this area instead of wasting it in other areas like nuclear & hydrocarbons. The clock is ticking forward, so why does everyone insist on looking backward?

PJD:

Pumped-storage hydro is not the only way to provide base-load or peak demand electricity. Fuel cells are often trotted out as an option, but I admit the conversion efficiency of electricity to chemical potential energy and back is low (though that doesn't necessarily matter if fuel cell storage technology became cheaper). However biomass is a viable option, using wood and other combustible waste as well as wood from local coppicing, and landfill gas. With smaller, locally-sited biomass power stations, you could then also have the district heating that some Northern European countries already use.

There are also pilot projects using compressed air to store and release energy generated by wind turbines (at source, i.e. using compressors and pressure tanks in the turbines' bases). This is apparently promising to be cost-effective, and could work wonders for matching demand and supply.

Although I'm not an electrical engineer, I am aware of renewed interest in high-voltage DC transmission as a means of doing exactly what you ask: low-loss transmission over continental distances. On my side of the Pond, there is talk of setting up an HVDC grid for Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (EUMENA) to distribute electricity, especially that which could be generated by solar power stations planned to be built in the latter two areas. HVDC does not require such heavy conductors because DC does not exhibit the 'skin effect' seen in AC, where the accelerations of electrical charge force the current to flow nearer the surface or 'skin' of the conductor, reducing its apparent cross-sectional area and so increasing the resistance and power loss. HVDC power loss is quoted at about 3% per 1000 km. Many AC lines lose more than that per 100 km and also have the problem of keeping the oscillations in current at either end of a power line synchronized to avoid overheating and failure of lines or transformers.

However, DC does require heavy-duty switching equipment to invert the DC back to AC so that it can be transformed to the low voltage (110 or 230 V) that end-users need. Equipment that can do this efficiently has only been developed fairly recently, and is still rather expensive. Hence HVDC is generally advocated for a few long-distance very high voltage backbones.

Hope this is not too boring!

Overall though, I would definitely second WmC's comment that energy conservation (e.g. really good building insulation, public transport, and thinking more laterally, reduce meat consumption) is by far the most cost-effective way to promote energy security and avoid the worst of climate change. The problems of this or that energy source should only be discussed within the wider framework of energy conservation, IMHO.

PS. I'm amazed other CDers appear not to like your idea of car-free living as the norm for urban design - seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Count me as a supporter!

Billy,
Here's a pretty good link from the DOE regarding geothermal systems. Although I usually am somewhat skeptical of certain government sites (as you well know) this one is pretty good because of the graphics explaining the three types of geothermal plants, and a good place to start. Good luck with your router:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/powerplants.html

Billy,
With how much funding is the question. Have you checked out Appollo Alliance.org?