Okay:
BUT isn’t McCain suggesting some transitional things be done first (increase domestic drilling/production; nuclear; etc. In other words, things that can be done NOW)…as we develop alternative energy sources? (As you guys have pointed out, some of these may be years from being viable on a large scale).
(I’ll read the link BWolf gave a little more in depth also).
Mufasa
I guess I should have looked at his site in the first place:
The Lexington Project
http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
I like this the most:
“John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles. A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country - and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil”.
Okay; especially those with more technical knowledge on these things:
Is this a reasonable AND obtainable technology AND
Will Politics totally kill this?
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles. A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country - and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil”.
Okay; especially those with more technical knowledge on these things:
Is this a reasonable AND obtainable technology AND
Will Politics totally kill this?
Mufasa
[/quote]
Exxon claims to be working on kick ass battery technology.
I don’t think of nuclear as transitional to alternatives, but more the other way around.
Nuclear power produces tremendous amounts of energy, and very little in the way of waste, especially if the stuff is reprocessed (i.e. recycled.) We are talking about one person’s usage resulting in waste the size of an aspirin each year.
In 30 years, a family of four would produce the equivalent amount of waste equal to 120 aspirin tablets. Coal, as an example, would produce a boxcar worth of waste over the equal time for the same people.
And even this would only be until we perfect fusion technology. The hope there is to have working reactors by ~2050.
HHO will revolutionize the car industry.
THe F-22 raptor is nuclear powered.
The change that is needed to ween the US off of oil is too much for Mccain or Obama.
Unfortunately it will take something to cripple the US economy before the American people will demand change. Maybe Gas going to 10 bucks or a world strike against selling the US oil. Why do you think that we are converting the US military to run on nuclear power and why we went into Iraq? To preserve our supply of oil and buy time to give us a plan to get off dependance of oil. Unfortunately Bush has squandered that time.
We import oil at a rate of 21 million brls a day.
we produce 5 million a day. that leaves 16 million barrels to import daily.
Half of our oil daily goes to the auto industry. We live on a day to day basis with our oil dependancy, kind of like a crack addict.
Our weakness is our economic dependance on oil. If there was an oil embargo against the US we would be a sitting duck. Hence the Iraq and Afganistan invasions.
We have strategic reserves of about 727 million barrels but at our current rate it would only sustain our economy and military for about 60 days.
BTW or miliary uses 350,00 barrels a day.
Lastly, what is going to create energy to put into batteries? Coal and Oil…THis is a dead end also.
[quote]jrrendon wrote:
THe F-22 raptor is nuclear powered. [/quote]
You can’t be serious!
jerrendon:
Not sure about your point. They create energy (in the form of electricity) by internal chemical reactions. The right technology to propel just cars will save millions of barrels a day.
Mufasa
[quote]jrrendon wrote:
HHO will revolutionize the car industry.
Very interesting. Usually breaking H2O into hydrogen uses energy, and the act of recombining it releases that energy. So hydrogen is only a storage of energy.
Unless this is using something different, then conservation of energy will make this a negative energy solution.[quote]
THe F-22 raptor is nuclear powered.[/quote]
Really? Cool. But why does it have fuel tanks then?[quote]
The change that is needed to ween the US off of oil is too much for Mccain or Obama. [/quote]
That is why we need to market to do it.
They are already demanding a change. In fact the Democrats are already talking about opening up the coasts for drilling because they are afraid the issue will cost them seats.
But I don’t think that is what you mean.[quote]
Why do you think that we are converting the US military to run on nuclear power and why we went into Iraq?[/quote]
If the military is converting to New-Q-Ler power, great. It would be because it is so efficient. Those nuke powered subs run forever, and even when they have sank, they have never leaked radiation.
And why did we go into Iraq? Because it was run by a nutjob, who if nothing else had fully functioning WMD plants.[quote]
To preserve our supply of oil and buy time to give us a plan to get off dependance of oil. Unfortunately Bush has squandered that time. [/quote]
Uh, no. This is really starting to sound like conspiracy theory nuttiness.[quote]
We import oil at a rate of 21 million brls a day.[/quote]
We do?[quote]
we produce 5 million a day. that leaves 16 million barrels to import daily. [/quote]
Wait, I thought we imported 21, but now its 16.
Anyway, in 2007, we produced 33.72% of our oil. We received 18.61% from Canada, and 14.07 from Mexico.
That gives us 66.4% of our oil from North American sources. Important to note.[quote]
Half of our oil daily goes to the auto industry. We live on a day to day basis with our oil dependancy, kind of like a crack addict. [/quote]
So driving a car is like using crack? Yeah, right.[quote]
Our weakness is our economic dependance on oil. If there was an oil embargo against the US we would be a sitting duck. Hence the Iraq and Afganistan invasions. [/quote]
There already have been these embargoes, and the funny thing is while it wasn’t good here, it hurt OPEC. You say oil is our crack, well the money from that oil is OPEC’s crack.[quote]
We have strategic reserves of about 727 million barrels but at our current rate it would only sustain our economy and military for about 60 days. [/quote]
Yup, if that was all we had to use. Don’t forget the fact that we get 66.4 % from North American sources, and they would not be affected by an OPEC embargo on us. Plus not all exporting countries belong to OPEC, and not all OPEC countries would join in, just because it would hurt them too much.
But assuming that all non-North American exports were involved in an embargo, that would push the reserve up to half a year. Conservation would push that even further.[quote]
BTW or miliary uses 350,00 barrels a day.[/quote]
OK.[quote]
Lastly, what is going to create energy to put into batteries? Coal and Oil…THis is a dead end also.[/quote]
Why the big freakin space at the end of your post? Trying to make it take up more space?
Anyway, yes if we start using more batteries, it will take more power plants. But those power plants are so much more efficient at producing energy.
This is not anything that is going to happen overnight. It is also not a problem that needs to be solved overnight, regardless of what you are hearing. (Or reading on those nutty websites you are obviously visiting.)
As more energy is needed, more power plants will be built. There are power plants that run on methane too. We have a lot of that, and guess what? We can make it. (They are doing that in my city right now.)
This doom and gloom “The world is going to end tomorrow” shtick is older then dirt. The world was supposed to end because of Y2K. Then the new Millennium (Which actually started on 2001.) And now the Mayan calendar date of December 21, of the year 2012.
And this doesn’t include the other thousand times the world was supposed to end in the last decade.
We do need to find solutions, but this over the top spiel does nothing to help.
I’m no expert, but intuitively, combining technologies (even on a small scale) would be even better (synergy energy?)
For example, a compact commuter car running with plug-in hybrid technology with a CNG generator and solar panels on the roof, hood and trunk lid.
With the Chevy Volt becoming more near term, having a CNG option for it’s generator seems like a good idea.
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Technowizard/TW-F-22_Raptor_Fighter.htm
The Mage, you dont like someone’s opinion then dont read it.
[quote]jrrendon wrote:
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Technowizard/TW-F-22_Raptor_Fighter.htm
The Mage, you dont like someone’s opinion then dont read it. [/quote]
If you don’t want someone tearing your “opinion” apart line by line, don’t post it.
Dude - I hate to break it to you but the F-22 has never flown a single minute under nuclear power defending the US, or any other country. You are talking about aftermarket stuff. It may have potential, but there are no mass produced modes of transportation running on nuclear power.
I suggest you maybe layoff the Star Trek conventions for a while, and try to focus on reality - especially if you want to contribute to this particular discussion.
[quote]jrrendon wrote:
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Technowizard/TW-F-22_Raptor_Fighter.htm
The Mage, you dont like someone’s opinion then dont read it. [/quote]
Wait. Your argument about the F-22 being nuclear powered comes from a gaming website?
The TW-F-22 Techno-Wizard Raptor Air Superiority Fighter?
Are you serious?
Did I just feed a troll?
We have plenty of oil and natural gas (but we have to go get it, drill - drill- drill) to get us to the next viable technology.
But until it becomes more economically feasible we will not use it.
Nothing to date has been as cheap as oil and gas. It is still the life blood of our economy.
To quote Captain Miller; “Saving Private Ryan”;
…“(This thread) has taken a turn for the surreal…”
Mufasa
[quote]The Mage wrote:
jrrendon wrote:
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/Technowizard/TW-F-22_Raptor_Fighter.htm
The Mage, you dont like someone’s opinion then dont read it.
Wait. Your argument about the F-22 being nuclear powered comes from a gaming website?
The TW-F-22 Techno-Wizard Raptor Air Superiority Fighter?
Are you serious?
Did I just feed a troll?
[/quote]
…lol
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Let me throw this out. I think that EI is as much a National Security issue as it is Environmental.
Agree or disagree?
[/quote]
Absolutely agree. And I’ll add that it is a basic economic and lifestyle quality issue as well.
Mage and Rainjack are both very pro nuclear but I have heard that uranium is a very much finite resource and that would make it a transition energy at best.
I have often heard that world energy demand would exhaust uranium stores in just a few decades. If this is true it is still an incredible potential resource and one we should explore but not the complete solution. Of course fusion power is a different story but some think it is beyond human potential. Who knows.
Most expert opinions seem to suggest that North American coal and tar sands are our most abundant and probably most reasonable transitional energy reserves.
I would prefer an electric transportation revolution because it would more easily allow this North American energy reserve to meet our incredible transportation energy demand. World demand for transportation oil is growing very rapidly and we should be proactive in securing our domestic transportation future.
Renewable energy still has a long way to go but my main point is that we should strive to make it a bedrock of our government and corporate culture in hopes of beating our foreign competitors in the renewable technology race. Nothing is more potentially rewarding or exciting than dominating the race for the next energy revolution.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
My opinion is that really all we need the fed to do is free up natural resourses, get rid of capital gains tax, and get rid of corporate tax. This alone would put us well on our way to alternative energy. Any other gov’t programs or subsidies will just be a disaster and put us even further behind. One look no further than ethenol.
Free up natural resourses - Hmmm…tax payer funding research for alternatives or the oil and gas we have in the ground funding research for alternatives? All of the oil companies have research programs that are already working on alternatives, including battery and electric for the auto industry. Some profit goes to research, some goes to investors that can or already are diversified in alternatives.
Get rid of capital gains tax - ok, this is a stretch. How about just get rid of capital gains tax for clean engery industries. Incent investors to invest in clean energy technologies. Again, doesn’t involve stealing from tax payers. Key here is not to cherry pick certain technologies.
Get rid of corporate tax - ok, even bigger stretch. Again, maybe just tax right off for research in alternatives or profits on alternatives. The best thing they could do is free up the entire economy but this is not going to happen.
[/quote]
These are all good ideas. Incentives and prizes for energy development and investment sounds like solid politics to me. So who do you think is more likely to approach ideas like these and actually make them happen?
And I just want to add that ethanol subsidies make me ill as well.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
McCain on energy - John McCain on the Issues
Obama on energy - Barack Obama on the Issues
This site is a freakin’ politics gold mine![/quote]
Thanks for the links.
Finite. I hate when people use that word, especially in arguing about energy.
Do you know what finite means? You must understand that the Sun only has a finite amount of energy. Another 4 billion years and it will run out of the hydrogen that fuels it.
The first thing to understand is that we do not have an energy problem… yet. The problems we are experiencing are only in the minds, and the results of the actions of politicians.
The numbers we have been given about what oil is left is faulty. There is a lot more light sweet crude then people think, and as technology improves, that number goes up. Then there are all the sources that they don’t count. Heavy oil, oil shale, oil sands.
We have 800 billion barrels of oil that is extractable at current technology, and with in-situ technology, it is more environmentally friendly then ever, and quite competitive at under $40 a barrel.
Even then, gas to oil technology can actually turn methane into a synthetic crude. And we can actually manufacture methane. (Everyone forgive me for repeating myself for the millionth time.)
The “renewable” sources are great, but only complementary. They might slow our usage of oil, coal, and gas, but they are not able to replace them.
The only answer is nuclear. I say this because it is the next advance in our energy technology. And it has been for years. America currently gets 19% of its electricity from nuclear power, and that is after not building a new one for 30 years.
Do not be worried about running out of uranium, it is 30 times more abundant then silver. We currently have a 70 year supply in current “proven” reserves. But between 1985 and 2005 nobody really looked for new sources of uranium. In fact there is enough in sea-water alone that if the price of uranium doubled, that would multiply the “proven” reserves by a factor of 10.
“Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilization of uranium 50-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural or depleted uranium for its ‘fertile blanket’, can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional reactor.”
Now that leads us to fusion. The last research reactor produced 16 megawatts for less then a second, which was considered a success, even though net energy production was negative. But the ITER reactor is expected to produce 500 megawatts for at least 16 minutes, (1000 seconds,) and produce 5 - 10 times the energy it uses. But this is still research, and the reactor is not expected to start until 2018.
We easily have a century of oil, gas, and coal available. Adding in nuke power gives us centuries, and eventually fusion will give us thousands of years, getting us to the source of energy our primitive minds cannot even fathom.
Oh, and the car we need: