MODU's energy solution

[MODU]

I have posted this in bits and pieces in different threads and forums for years now, but I'll try to consolidate my thoughts here for people to pick apart and debate.  Being authoritarian, some of the concepts might sound a bit harsh, but sometimes it takes a kick to the butt to get people to adapt to a changing world.  It's well beyond time to get serious about becoming independent of foreign oil, and these are some avenues which we can take to achieve that goal quicker.

1)  Hybrid vehicles:  Hybrid vehicles are a good short-term patch to the ever-increasing domestic oil demand in the US.  Many hybrids will double the mileage output of a gallon of gasoline when compared to your traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.  The federal and state governments have tried for years to encourage people to buy these new hybrid vehicles to cut down on pollution as well as to help stem the demand on oil, using tax credits and special driving privileges (like using the express lanes in the DC area) to entice new buyers.  While these have helped to build a market for the auto companies to sell their products, it doesn't go far enough.  People are still buying Hummers and Suburbans which drink gas as if it were going out of style.  It's time for a change.

Instead of providing tax credits for buying a hybrid, it's time to start putting a tax penalty on ICE vehicles.  The cost difference will remain the same (hybrids being "cheaper" than ICE vehicles), but now there more pressure to transition into hybrids.  The tax penalty on ICE vehicles will be used towards a federal program (to be discussed later).  Within 5 years, we might be able to increase the hybrid percentage up to 10-15% of on-road traffic, saving up to 10% of the gas we would normally consume.

2)  Oil production:  Despite having some of the largest oil companies in the world as well as leading in scientific advancement, we fail to maximize the oil potential within our boundaries and rely heavily on foreign oil and refinery capacity.  Between the oil pockets accessible by land and sea, we could easily cut down on our imports by 5-10% within 10 years (barring any changes in energy technology before then).  Unfortunately, due to local and state regulations on oil drilling, many of these reserves remain untouched, especially on the West Coast. 

Additionally, our refinery capacity is suffering.  We are currently using refineries that are over 20 years old and beginning to show their age (note the increase in refinery fires/explosions over the past few years).  New refineries need to be built near the source of the oil.  Additionally, California refinery regulations need to be lifted.  Currently, the refineries are only allowed to produce certain grades of fuel in proportion to existing supplies of other grades, leading to facilities operating well below capacity while increasing the cost of the fuel.  We also need to begin to standardize the various grades produced on a national level.  If California requires a very clean-burning grade due to their smog problem, then doesn't it make sense that the same clean-burning grade be used nationally?  This way, the only time the grades need to change nationally is when the seasons transition between winter and summer.  This will decrease the production expenses on the gas we consume, which lifts the burden off the poorer of the consumers.

3)  National energy program:  It's been 60 years since our last great national scientific project.  The development of nuclear technology was done while in the midst of a World War, where educational, scientific, and commercial minds were brought together by the government to invent the most devastating weapon of all time.  Once again, we find ourselves in a World War, and this time, instead of a weapon of destruction, we need a weapon of independence.  By pooling all of our hydrogen technology together, we can simplify and standardize the production, transportation, and consumption of hydrogen as a means to break away from foreign oil. 

Partially funded by the tax penalties on ICE vehicles (let's admit it, companies and consumers will still desire ICE vehicles), the government can gather our nations greatest minds together to transform us to the next stage of our existence.  There are many existing methods to produce hydrogen, but since they are stuck in the experimental stages, their costs are too high.  By identifying which method(s) are the most cost effective, and then planning our infrastructure around that, hydrogen will be easier to supply and "sell" to the general public rather than relying on a few eco-friendly consumers with big bucks to make the initial purchases. 

Once the technology and process has been standardized under the national program, the technology would be made available for all public companies to use equally, allowing them to tinker further with the designs to customize and probably improve over time.  The same was done following the declassification of the nuclear technology which led to our current number of nuclear reactors.

4)  Nuclear power:  Speaking of which, we have not built a new reactor in years.  Since the last reactor was built, technological advancements have made nuclear reactors nearly 100% safe.  This is done by using pellets rather than fuel rods in the energy process.  The pellets, due to their relatively small size, will not go critical and result in meltdown.  With that, they are able to be built closer to where the population bases are, providing constant power to the local users.  With proper planning, a new nuclear reactor could replace existing oil-powered plants, further cutting our need for foreign oil.  The first reactor, if this plan was implemented today, would be ready within 8 years.

(Sorry, I have more points to cover, but got to get back to work.  I'll add more later.  This should give you enough to begin discussions on before I get back.)

[DanielX]

Me like 2 and 4. 1 and 3 are questionable, but might be neccesary.

[MaC]

I have posted this in bits and pieces in different threads and forums for years now, but I'll try to consolidate my thoughts here for people to pick apart and debate.  Being authoritarian, some of the concepts might sound a bit harsh, but sometimes it takes a kick to the butt to get people to adapt to a changing world.  It's well beyond time to get serious about becoming independent of foreign oil, and these are some avenues which we can take to achieve that goal quicker.

1)  Hybrid vehicles:  Hybrid vehicles are a good short-term patch to the ever-increasing domestic oil demand in the US.  Many hybrids will double the mileage output of a gallon of gasoline when compared to your traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.  The federal and state governments have tried for years to encourage people to buy these new hybrid vehicles to cut down on pollution as well as to help stem the demand on oil, using tax credits and special driving privileges (like using the express lanes in the DC area) to entice new buyers.  While these have helped to build a market for the auto companies to sell their products, it doesn't go far enough.  People are still buying Hummers and Suburbans which drink gas as if it were going out of style.  It's time for a change.

Instead of providing tax credits for buying a hybrid, it's time to start putting a tax penalty on ICE vehicles.  The cost difference will remain the same (hybrids being "cheaper" than ICE vehicles), but now there more pressure to transition into hybrids.  The tax penalty on ICE vehicles will be used towards a federal program (to be discussed later).  Within 5 years, we might be able to increase the hybrid percentage up to 10-15% of on-road traffic, saving up to 10% of the gas we would normally consume.

2)  Oil production:  Despite having some of the largest oil companies in the world as well as leading in scientific advancement, we fail to maximize the oil potential within our boundaries and rely heavily on foreign oil and refinery capacity.  Between the oil pockets accessible by land and sea, we could easily cut down on our imports by 5-10% within 10 years (barring any changes in energy technology before then).  Unfortunately, due to local and state regulations on oil drilling, many of these reserves remain untouched, especially on the West Coast. 

Additionally, our refinery capacity is suffering.  We are currently using refineries that are over 20 years old and beginning to show their age (note the increase in refinery fires/explosions over the past few years).  New refineries need to be built near the source of the oil.  Additionally, California refinery regulations need to be lifted.  Currently, the refineries are only allowed to produce certain grades of fuel in proportion to existing supplies of other grades, leading to facilities operating well below capacity while increasing the cost of the fuel.  We also need to begin to standardize the various grades produced on a national level.  If California requires a very clean-burning grade due to their smog problem, then doesn't it make sense that the same clean-burning grade be used nationally?  This way, the only time the grades need to change nationally is when the seasons transition between winter and summer.  This will decrease the production expenses on the gas we consume, which lifts the burden off the poorer of the consumers.

3)  National energy program:  It's been 60 years since our last great national scientific project.  The development of nuclear technology was done while in the midst of a World War, where educational, scientific, and commercial minds were brought together by the government to invent the most devastating weapon of all time.  Once again, we find ourselves in a World War, and this time, instead of a weapon of destruction, we need a weapon of independence.  By pooling all of our hydrogen technology together, we can simplify and standardize the production, transportation, and consumption of hydrogen as a means to break away from foreign oil. 

Partially funded by the tax penalties on ICE vehicles (let's admit it, companies and consumers will still desire ICE vehicles), the government can gather our nations greatest minds together to transform us to the next stage of our existence.  There are many existing methods to produce hydrogen, but since they are stuck in the experimental stages, their costs are too high.  By identifying which method(s) are the most cost effective, and then planning our infrastructure around that, hydrogen will be easier to supply and "sell" to the general public rather than relying on a few eco-friendly consumers with big bucks to make the initial purchases. 

Once the technology and process has been standardized under the national program, the technology would be made available for all public companies to use equally, allowing them to tinker further with the designs to customize and probably improve over time.  The same was done following the declassification of the nuclear technology which led to our current number of nuclear reactors.

4)  Nuclear power:  Speaking of which, we have not built a new reactor in years.  Since the last reactor was built, technological advancements have made nuclear reactors nearly 100% safe.  This is done by using pellets rather than fuel rods in the energy process.  The pellets, due to their relatively small size, will not go critical and result in meltdown.  With that, they are able to be built closer to where the population bases are, providing constant power to the local users.  With proper planning, a new nuclear reactor could replace existing oil-powered plants, further cutting our need for foreign oil.  The first reactor, if this plan was implemented today, would be ready within 8 years.

(Sorry, I have more points to cover, but got to get back to work.  I'll add more later.  This should give you enough to begin discussions on before I get back.)

1.Hummers and SUVs have reached their peak already.  Gas guzzlers are less and less stylish as the price of gas rises.  It's stupid, but what people generally want isn't good for them and what is, they probably don't want.  Hybrid cars still have this stigma about them-it's European, it's by the rabid environmentalists...  If they were to sucessfully market a hybrid truck, or stylish sports car, I think people would change their tune.

2.It really would make more sense to drill here at home, but power politicking and politicans with balls to the wall beligerence on foreign policy aren't going to let it happen, except as a last resort.

3.We do need a new way of doing things, where I disagree is the government part.  When government gets involved in energy policy, it's only looking for a quick fix (how do I bring gas prices down so Ican please the constituents and get re-elected).  However in the free market, if someone were to create this innovation they could sell it, and get rich off it, their talents would get them rich beyond their dreams.  Just the profit incentive is enough to get people interested in inventing and being creative.

4.Nuclear power may be helpful and powerful, but they can generate a large amount of waste.

My energy solution: there's really two types of energy, the kind that can be renewed easily and the type that we have to keep digging for.  The second type consists of coal, fossil fuels, oil and such.  The prices are high because of the scarcity (or at least percieved scarcity).  The first type is solar power, wind power, and water power.
Now the solar/wind/water are frowned upon because they look inefficient (anyone who owns a solar powered calculator knows what I mean), but the goal in this is to make them efficient.  The goal is to be able to save and store these souces until they are needed. 
1.These sources are environmentally friendly-by comparrison.
2.These sources we will always have enough of.

[WMS]

Oh, I pretty much agree with MODU, but I can hear the interest groups, left-enviromentalist and right-corporate alike, screaming from here.

[Blue Rectangle]

Here is a good general-knowledge-level article on pebble bed reactors.

[MODU]

Here is a good general-knowledge-level article on pebble bed reactors.

Thanks Blue, and thanks everyone else who have posted so far.  I'll add more when I get a chance.  Points will include things such as green technology as well as efficiencies.

[Jake]

This all seems acceptable to me. A point on the first section, hybrid vehicles also are not as widely availible as the should be. My mom was shopping for a new car last summer and finally settled on a Prius after all her research. Only problem was, she had to drive to Minneanapolis to pick it up if she wanted it before six months were up. Eventually, she settled on a Corolla which gets 40 mpgs isntead of 55 mpgs, but would've definitely got a Prius if any were availible. I'm not sure anything beyond increased interest in the vehicle could solve this problem for now, but it is certainly a reason more people aren't buying the more efficient type of vehicle.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Nuclear is fine, and we should be building more plants, but it won't help us out much with the oil crunch. Roughly U.S. electricty production breaks down as follows

50% Coal
20% Nuclear
18% Natural Gas
  7% Hydroelectric
  3% Oil
  2% Renewables

Oil is primarily used in spot generators that can be quickly started and stopped as needed to even out the load.  With current tech, only Gas and Hydro are suitable substitues for that use.  Frankly, I'd much rather have to deal with nuclear waste than the air pollution and carbon dioxide from the equivalent in coal-fired electricity energy production.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. Yeah, we could stop giving tax subsidies to SUVs, but that probably won't happen
2. We're already drilling most large oil fields, the things left tend to be a lot smaller. This would only delay the inevitable a few months tops
3. Particularly we need an energy source for the hydrogen. Fuel cells are basically like batteries
4. Remember 3 mile Island? And what happens to the waste?

[WMS]

4. Remember 3 mile Island? And what happens to the waste?

They'll stash it all in NM (WIPP) and NV (Yucca Mountain) like they're already doing.

[Jake]

And it doesn't suprise me JFraud fails once again to comprehend a link on the Three Mile Island point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And it doesn't suprise me JFraud fails once again to comprehend a link on the Three Mile Island point.

What do you say, Fake?

[Giant Saguaro]

Short term, I like hybrids, so I certainly agree there. I think companies could maybe do more to streamline them a bit more or make them look more appealing and basically to get people to look at it and say, that's a pretty cool futuristic looking piece of equipment that's going to save me money. But they don't do that or that doesn't sink in. Somehow if this were the '80s (with images of flying cars and little personal shuttles) I think we would be more inclined to see them that way. But we like our gas guzzlers and SUV's and I'll admit I do too, I'm guilty. Something about the space for sure, definitely the "off-roadability," and maybe social status. In control on the road, etc. I mean if someone offered you a Hummer or a hybrid, most would take a Hummer, I think.

Long term, I just don't know. It won't really become a crisis until oil is almost used up. Then all of a sudden you'll see all sorts of research and all sorts of ideas.

[angus]

Instead of providing tax credits for buying a hybrid, it's time to start putting a tax penalty on ICE vehicles.  The cost difference will remain the same (hybrids being "cheaper" than ICE vehicles), but now there more pressure to transition into hybrids.  The tax penalty on ICE vehicles will be used towards a federal program (to be discussed later).  Within 5 years, we might be able to increase the hybrid percentage up to 10-15% of on-road traffic, saving up to 10% of the gas we would normally consume.

An excellent idea.

Unfortunately, due to local and state regulations on oil drilling, many of these reserves remain untouched, especially on the West Coast. 

I thought we settled the question of State vs. Federal power at the point of a bayonnet.  (Yay Republicans!) Additionally, our refinery capacity is suffering.  We are currently using refineries that are over 20 years old and beginning to show their age (note the increase in refinery fires/explosions over the past few years).  New refineries need to be built near the source of the oil.  Additionally, California refinery regulations need to be lifted.  Currently, the refineries are only allowed to produce certain grades of fuel in proportion to existing supplies of other grades, leading to facilities operating well below capacity while increasing the cost of the fuel.  We also need to begin to standardize the various grades produced on a national level.  If California requires a very clean-burning grade due to their smog problem, then doesn't it make sense that the same clean-burning grade be used nationally?  This way, the only time the grades need to change nationally is when the seasons transition between winter and summer.  This will decrease the production expenses on the gas we consume, which lifts the burden off the poorer of the consumers.

I thought we settled the question of The Supremacy of DC vis-a-vis State Legislatures at the point of a bayonnet.  (yay Republicans!)  Of course, the problem here is that pesky constitution.  Let's burn it.  Screw it.  i.e., security is nice, but as we've discussed before, there's always a tradeoff between liberty and security.  I'm not sure Americans (myself among them) are ready for this particular sacrifice of liberty.

3)  National energy program:  It's been 60 years since our last great national scientific project.  The development of nuclear technology was done while in the midst of a World War, where educational, scientific, and commercial minds were brought together by the government to invent the most devastating weapon of all time.  Once again, we find ourselves in a World War, and this time, instead of a weapon of destruction, we need a weapon of independence.  By pooling all of our hydrogen technology together, we can simplify and standardize the production, transportation, and consumption of hydrogen as a means to break away from foreign oil. 

Partially funded by the tax penalties on ICE vehicles (let's admit it, companies and consumers will still desire ICE vehicles), the government can gather our nations greatest minds together to transform us to the next stage of our existence.  There are many existing methods to produce hydrogen, but since they are stuck in the experimental stages, their costs are too high.  By identifying which method(s) are the most cost effective, and then planning our infrastructure around that, hydrogen will be easier to supply and "sell" to the general public rather than relying on a few eco-friendly consumers with big bucks to make the initial purchases. 

Once the technology and process has been standardized under the national program, the technology would be made available for all public companies to use equally, allowing them to tinker further with the designs to customize and probably improve over time.  The same was done following the declassification of the nuclear technology which led to our current number of nuclear reactors.

This is a mouthful.  First, you need to learn the difference between "clean" and "conventional" hydrogen technologies.  We could look at Hamburg's & Amsterdam's Clean Urban Transport for Europe (CUTE) program, for example, which pruduces hydrogen entirely with renewable energy.  Moreover, I suggest we look at Solar,  and Wind.  Cleaner and renewable.

4)  Nuclear power:  Speaking of which, we have not built a new reactor in years.  Since the last reactor was built, technological advancements have made nuclear reactors nearly 100% safe.  This is done by using pellets rather than fuel rods in the energy process.  The pellets, due to their relatively small size, will not go critical and result in meltdown.  With that, they are able to be built closer to where the population bases are, providing constant power to the local users.  With proper planning, a new nuclear reactor could replace existing oil-powered plants, further cutting our need for foreign oil.  The first reactor, if this plan was implemented today, would be ready within 8 years.

It's certainly worth investing in.  Right now, Nukyular power supplies about 14% of our electricity needs.  Compare that to the 78% of the electricity needs of France supplied by Nuclear.  But the is that little problem of what to do with the waste.

I'm surprised you didn't comment, in your diatriabe, about our remarkable lack of mass transit.  I agree that we need to get over our collective oil addiction.  Every 24 hours California's Carson Refinery, for example, produces seven million gallons of gasoline.  Sounds like a lot, doesn't it?  It's about 14% of the state's daily diet.  To start, that state should lead the way, with it's 35 million residents crammed along a narrow strip of coastal land, with public transit.

"Nobody walks in L.A."
   --Forgotten 80s band

"Are you kidding?  I'm from California where Parking's a God-given right.  Screw Manhattan."
   --Forgotten physics professor from angus' early life

"You've come a long way, baby"
    --Virginia Slims cigarette ad, marketed to females

Well, we still have a long way to go.  still, some of your ideas are a good start.

[opebo]

The solution, MODU, would be to undo every bit of construction and urban planning (or lack thereof) since about 1945.  We should all be living in densely packed central cities, without highways, and utilizing public transport and intercity rail.  The only gas-guzzling transport that makes any sense is air travel.

In other words too much is built wrong in the US to be corrected - inevitable result = lower standard of living.  Europe wins again!

[AuH2O]

Nuclear power is perfectly safe. Three Mile Island is the case-in-point. A first generation reactor went haywire, in a time where there was limited computer technology, and was poorly responded to... and there was no meltdown. Opposition to nuclear power is dying, fast.

The real key would be figuring out 2 things, one short term, one long term:

1) How to efficiently extract oil from shale and/or tar sand.

There is more oil in the SW United States than in Saudi Arabia. Hell, more than in Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, and Iraq, and Venezuela combined. The problem is that it isn't light sweet crude-- which is easy to refine-- but mixed with particulate matter and various substances that need to be removed even once the oil is isolated.

Canada also has ridiculous amounts of oil in the form of shale oil, which is not only rock but often frozen to boot. It's probably easier to get at than tar sand, but nonetheless isn't efficient currently. With these two sources, the US and Canada could have all the oil you could ever want... if there's a way to refine it.

2) How to safely fuel cars with hydrogen and also how to set up a network of fueling stations in the transitionary period.

The future is hydrogen. But scientific and economic hurdles remain. Storage temperature and reactivity are the two main issues. There is no question this is a legitimate area of interest for the national government, though money should be focused, not just handouts to Ford, etc. to build prototypes.