Way out of the US fuel chrises?

[Magiver]

@spoke-

Mopeds produce a lot of particulate emissions, don’t they?

Put my vote down in the nuclear plants/electric cars/hydrogen fuel cells column.

The advantage of nuclear is that it addresses both our oil problem and our emissions problem.

You can buy battey powered mopeds and bicycles. The bicylce kits are a bit expensive in my opinion but they’re around.

[Magiver]

@Askance

Starting right now, it would take 20 years minimum to build enough nuke power to make a difference. Way, way way way too late.

You have to go to them on a regular basis to find the buy-out stuff. I found a mechanical pencil that I love but nobody carried. I usually paid $4 for them on a custom order. It was nice to find them for $1.

[Cisco]

@spoke-

The advantage of nuclear is that it addresses both our oil problem and our emissions problem.

It does create a bit of a nuclear waste problem, though.

Not that other fuels don’t leave messes behind too, I’m just sayin’ it’s not perfect.

[enipla]

Why not small scale hydro to help?

The dam right below my house feeds Colorado Springs some of its water. Heck It’s the beginning of the South Platte River.

It’s already dammed. Just as Dillon Reservoir is. Why don’t we harness some of the energy coming out of them?

Building small hydro electic plants is no small feat I’m sure. But a hell of a lot easier then building nukes. And a LOT more acceptable to the general public. If the dam is already there, lets make use of the energy that it holds.

Create special use districts if need be. Feed the power back into the grid. We are already able to feed energy back in to the grid from a single family home. Why are we letting the energy from existing dams go to waste?

The Blue out of Dillon is now at 800 CFS. That’s a lot of energy. But peanuts compared to some flows. We have rivers running at 40,000 CFS up here.

I know that nothing is a free ride. But even a small hydro plant on an existing dam should pay for itself pretty quickly.

[Askance]

@Magiver

That’s the same response that’s been made for years over drilling for oil.

No it isn’t. Who ever said it takes 20 years to drill for oil?

We can’t solve all our energy problems by drilling therefore we won’t do anything.

Plenty of drilling has been done. What are you talking about? There is just simply less left out there, and the easier and cheaper sources have already been tapped.

But while we’re here, how did you come up with your 20 year “minimum” estimate to build enough nuclear plants to make a difference.

Here is an article on the first new nuclear reactor to be built in the UK for a long time. Starting this year, it’s going to take 12 years to come on line - assuming everything goes right. It further says that most of the existing stations there will go OUT of service over the next 15 years. So you need to build staggering numbers of plants to keep up with the old ones being decommissioned and all the new ones you need to replace oil, gas and coal ones now in service.

This article is about the US situation. There are applications for a whole 28 new plants ($90 billion worth) in the US:

the lead times are so long and costs so high that it’s unclear that the US can build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They’re so financially risky, experts say, that the only reason building plans are under way is that the federal government has stepped in to guarantee investors against loan defaults.

but

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1 billion tons annually, the level set by some scientists as a goal for nuclear power, the world would need to build 21 new 1,000-megawatt nuclear plants per year – about five of those annually in the US – for the next 50 years, says a Keystone Center report endorsed by the NEI. The US industry reached that level in the 1980s. But even under its most optimistic assessment, the Energy Information Administration recently projected that only about 53 nuclear power plants would be built by 2056. At that rate, this would not even replace the existing nuclear capacity expected to be retired during that time, the Keystone report said.

[Spoke]

@Cisco

It does create a bit of a nuclear waste problem, though.

Not that other fuels don’t leave messes behind too, I’m just sayin’ it’s not perfect.

Having endured Atlanta’s smog, I would opt for a nuclear waste problem over an emissions problem.