DIY Home Made Energy

By friend on Oct 4, 2008 | Reply

everybody needs things done faster and none is interested in long term benefits.

By mt_zion_crusader on Oct 5, 2008 | Reply

“The cost of wind power at 4 cents per kilowatt hour is competitive with the cost of electricity generated by coal and nuclear energy and less than the cost of generating electricity using natural gas.”

That is simply not true. As soon as it IS true–without subsidies, wind farms will go up all over the place. The market will make it happen.

By Joey on Oct 6, 2008 | Reply

104 nuclear reactors make up 1/5th of the nations power output. With about 325 million people in this country, a single reactor can provide power to up to about 625,000 people.

A wind turbine can’t provide nearly that much power. To get an usable amount of electricity from wind or solar power, you would need alot of turbines/solar grids. And they still cost money for construction and maintenance.

Wind turbine grids will cost alot of money to build, take up alot of space, and will provide less power.

By aztrain23 on Oct 6, 2008 | Reply

Not quite that simple. One of the huge appeals of natural gas and coal is that you can easily transport the fuel to where the electricity is generated, and the rate of production is easily variable on demand by controlling the combustion process.

Wind isn’t the same way, it can’t be used everywhere it’s needed because of geography and weather patterns. You would lose so much power transmitting electricity over long distances, and it’s not like you can ramp up the wind during peak demand and scale it back during low demand until you need it.

Plus, you’ll get a lot of resistance from people that, ironically, don’t want the landscape to be strewn with the hundreds and thousands of enormous wind farms that it would require to replace a single fossil-fuel power plant. Not exactly celebrated as a Kodak moment where I live.

But I’m with you on nuclear power. Of course, I studied it in graduate school so I’m not nearly as concerned with the long-term consequences as the general public. But then, it’s the long-term consequences that I have in mind when supporting it. After all, France generates roughly 70% of its electricity from nuclear power, and I don’t see why we can’t phase out coal powered plants the same way.

By Stevengoku on Oct 7, 2008 | Reply

Well, I’m pretty sure nuclear power is 10x’s better than most energy resources. And it’s not hard to come by in the United States.

As for coal and natural gas I think it’s pretty stupid to still use that. It’s absolutely horrible for the environment and most of the actual energy isn’t used. If we wanted to continue using this we should at least save it until we get superconductivity working.

By Bob on Oct 11, 2008 | Reply

We can replace coal, and other fossil fuels.

We can’t do it without using nuclear right now, at any reasonable cost. The cost you cite may be theoretically possible, but present wind farms can’t match that. One problem is that you need a LOT of excess capacity to cope with no wind some places sometimes.

We can build nuclear power plants that are safe and safe from terrorism. We can dispose of the waste safely, it’s just a political problem to designate a site.

A reasonable plan is to press ahead on all three fronts; nuclear, solar, and wind. The goal would be to run the nuclear plants for one “lifetime” (30-50 years) and then replace them with improved wind and solar as they wear out.

Your idea is good, but we need nuclear to make the transition away from fossil fuels right now.

By jwburton3 on Oct 12, 2008 | Reply

We are trying. Go Green!!

By Dr Jello on Oct 15, 2008 | Reply

We are. Why do you think we’re not?

Wind turbines are being put up as fast as they can be built. There is no shortage in developing wind power.

But we also need to supplement wind with other sources of clean power like nuclear. Nuclear power is clean reliable and safe. There is no reason to be afraid of new technology.

By Trevor on Oct 18, 2008 | Reply

Theoretically we could do but it’s a question of scale, convenience, acceptability and more than anything else - cost.

Fossil fuel burning power plants are the largest contributor of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere accounting for almost a quarter of all emissions. Replacing them with alternative power sources would have a significant impact on reducing the effects of global warming.

Nuclear power is one way forward, there are potential drawbacks but it doesn’t produce greenhouse gases. One of the biggest drawbacks is cost. Here in the UK the early nuclear power plants are now being decomissioned at a cost of around $120 billion in an operation that will take 30 years to complete - and that’s just for a few plants. The more modern nuclear power plants are more efficient but they’re still expensive in the long run.

There is certainly potential for other renewable energy sources. The UK government is on the verge of announcing plans to have all homes in the UK powered by wind turbines by 2020 and the Irish have just devoloped the world’s largest turbine which will operate underwater and be driven by tidal currents. Several major corporations have switched to generating their own power, Nissan for example have a tidal generator to power their car manufacturing plants and Yahoo have gone green (now sure what approach they used). Many other businesses are seeing the benefits and voluntarily switching the alternative power sources. As a successful track record becomes established and more people become aware of the benefits than I would guess that they too, will want to see alternatives developed.

By redrum7 on Oct 21, 2008 | Reply

*Wind power is not a viable source of electricity for the out put that is required for industry. Nor for cities. There good for limited supply demand.
We have more coal than anywhere else in the world. We have the technology to filter the impurities out. The cost factor is extremely high. Perhaps a tax credit to utilities that expand their now existing older power plants and installing the new methods of filtering. Outside of China we have the largest sulfur free coal deposits in the world. Thanks to Clinton,we cannot mine it. He placed it under land protection act. It seems China and Clinton go to gather,not because the both start with “C”.
Nuclear power is a good safe source of power.
Other countries have been and are building power plants for years. But these worthless human debris called the Legislature are bound and determined to drag this country down to the level of 3rd worlds. If you have a better explanation for their do nothing stance,I sure would like to hear it!

By kusheng on Oct 24, 2008 | Reply

Nuclear power is cost effective and emits no greenhouse gases, but has long-term environmental consequences in waste disposal.

While wind power is becoming more and more reliable, it cannot be used when the wind dies down, for instance. Solar cannot be used during the night.

Federal grants need to be aggressively provided to implement solar and wind, despite the limitations. While nuclear may be the best option to most people, it just won’t be widely implemented in the U.S. Our politics are different than in France, and it’s much more difficult to site these nuclear power plants in the U.S. U.S. citizens will strongly object to any nuclear power plant in their back yards (there’s a reason why a new nuclear power plant hasn’t been built for 30 years inside the the U.S.)

By butterfly on Oct 27, 2008 | Reply

Actually, my husband should be answering this, but he doesn’t like to write on the computer. He’s an electrical engineer. Nuclear power gets bad publicity as does coal.

Wind is NOT the way to go, wind requires constant maintainenance and it is not effecient. You cannot store power generated by wind, it does not create enough energy to keep one house in electricity for a feasible amount of time. Besides, if there isn’t enough wind the turbines won’t move, and if there is too much wind, they must be shut down! Doesn’t sound very reliable does it? You have to have a constant wind speed and where do you find that naturally?

Far from what most people have been brain-washed into believing, partly because of the mishandling of incompetence at Chernobyl, Nuclear is the safest fuel source available at this time. “The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety.” I might add it was the only nuclear plant that had any fatalities. It can be stored, it is CLEAN, it is highly regulated; the chance of a nuclear spill is very, very slim. Yet we’ve had past and present politicians who don’t know anything about nuclear power who have banned it.

Just as the KS governor recently banned 2 coal plants, what nonsense! Coal has come a long way in the past 20-30 years, it is much cleaner than it used to be. The plants do not emit the pollutants they used to. We have plenty of coal in this nation! It is a cheap fuel source, but liberal politicians want to ban it also.

We could have more inexpensive natural gas, if the federal goverment would take off the regulations for cogeneration of natural gas wells that have been shut down for marginal profits. Yet, you are messing with the agreement between large power companies and politics and that means MONEY! I know this because a friend who had several gas wells, approached the feds to turn his wells into electricity and they were going to put so many regulations on him, it became unfeasible. They actually told him they would prefer to stick to large power companies! This was a direct result of the Carter administration.