The New Deal

[foodchain]

Lets just think in some hypothetical political world the politicians unite to pass some energy reform bill that is to work in 12 years. This is how the plan would hopefully work as I see it and I just wonder if it would be possible.

 

We open up the oil reserves in the U.S and pay for our dependent there. that money along with 250 billion dollars of taxes annually is invested in contracts with states or private sector to build a green America rich with alternative non fossil fuel use in 12 years.

 

So what do you think could real energy alternative become a reality for the U.S in 12 years going from a budget of oil reserve consumed annually plus 250 billion annually from government on contracts to produce such an environment?

 

Some major bonuses I see with it would be immediate aid to our economy and of course all of that money staying in the U.S paying for such infrastructure. I think such money would bear most of the burden any transformation would inflict economically while at that same time making such a change over something more realistic for the private sector to engage in.

 

I think the real success would be in how the plan was actually formulated and then of course how it was carried out but I do think such a sum of money could make a green America or green technology a reality. It would also make America a pioneer in such an area if not industry leader globally while at the same time combating global warming if not ending it by the spread of such technology.

[Realitycheck]

If we stay focused on such a plan (which is pretty much a given,since it is so imperative), I see no real barriers to getting it done. We have the technology. It's just a matter of actually doing it, motivating manufacturers, setting up infrastructure, etc., things that we have been procrastinating about for too long. They will probably give massive tax credits for companies that help fast track this deal.

[ParanoiA]

At this point in international tension, I could easily buy a national security imperative to roll something like this out. I think that's the best way to sell the idea too, leave the obvious benefits to global warming out of it, or right wingers won't jump on board. I think you hook them with the energy independence angle.

[foodchain]

At this point in international tension, I could easily buy a national security imperative to roll something like this out. I think that's the best way to sell the idea too, leave the obvious benefits to global warming out of it, or right wingers won't jump on board. I think you hook them with the energy independence angle.

 

 

I think national security could sell it but I also think using global warming could obtain more international support with the issue. A very real threat exists of china attempting to move into the lead on such a technology, I could only see such technology becoming more and more paramount in the world also. So outside of any patriotic or nationalistic thinking the point being is even in the economic world the issue does exist. The big part of it all to me is really using government as nothing more then an ignition process into alternative energy that will be consumed by private sector mostly.

 

For instance with nuclear, we already have existing nuclear infrastructure. Cant democracy in any particular state or city allow people to make informed decisions if they want such technology to exist in that community? Basically where could you try to implement any supposed safe nuclear energy sources? As much as nuclear is an option its one that has an image that needs to be cleaned up along with real world issues that are the same. How do you sell a community of people or even a state something that can potentially produce nuclear accidents or leaks? Bottom line is even in light of being able to produce supposed safe nuclear technology no real budget exists to support it.

 

This also exists with solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal and a whole array of technologies ranging from building materials to train designs. Does any actual list exist that compounds every single green alternative that exist even to the level of listing behaviors? Its not that being green has to imply such a harsh regime like that just that making such a pile of money available surely would attract attention going along with what its attached to.

[npts2020]

Personally, I advocate automating the American road/rail system and powering the whole thing with solar and wind energy. We can debate how long that would actually take but it would convert over 1/4 of our national energy use from petroleum to renewables and save over 40,000 people from gruesome deaths every year.

[bascule]

My suggestion would be for the government to create massive subsidies for the construction of new nuclear power plants, and also streamline and modernize the nuclear regulatory process to facilitate a substantially faster approval process for the construction of new nuclear power plants.

 

Also: fully fund the completion of Yucca Mountain.

[Pangloss]

I'm with bascule on that one. I would also build a lot of wind and solar farms, and I would also have a subsidy for rooftop solar for businesses (all those office parks with empty roofs really annoy me).

[iNow]

(all those office parks with empty roofs really annoy me).

 

Off-topic, but it sounds like you'd be glad to read this story from last week:

 

 

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=6441938

 

With 7,000 panels, Sunnyvale's Applied Materials is now home to Northern California's largest corporate solar installation. The maker of semiconductors and solar equipment unveiled its new solar array Thursday, with the help of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[foodchain]

It would provide I think a huge window of opportunity in just terms of money. I don't know again how it should be used is the big question. I also think it would put more pressure on innovation by simply allowing for it. Right now I think the world economically in any advanced nation suppresses alternative energy and lifestyles to a certain extent, maybe more so in some nations or places then others but in general such occurring globally.

 

My big selling point would be that it could offer in terms of a contract a large sum of money for some particular business to invest itself into alternative energy. Take any private sector company built around energy, I think such a window of money would be something that could create more assurance for more and more companies to invest themselves into the program. I don't think the money should be handed out as a loan unless certain conditions of failure occur such as corrupt accounting practices or something. It may seem like government policy to buy up a business for a period of time but the idea is a collective investment into American infrastructure under such an amount of money should be able to foster it being able to change successfully to something alternative and green at such a scale, in which it would just be business as usual just a different power source.

 

The big government lean on the contracts would just have to be something that assures the business is conducting itself business like or soundly to however they were awarded the money via a contract. This is also the part I think the economy and government would really have to meld somewhat is simply in regard to policy in regards to making and awarding various contracts.

 

---------------------

 

On a side note anyone know how this would actually look in real life? What if engineering programs that studied alternative energy could get just so much more money annually? the amount of ways this could influence change I think is astounding or at least large.

[npts2020]

Nuclear power is both unnecessary and dangerous or I would whole-heartedly support it as well. There are so many alternatives and more being developed all the time that we can supply all of civilizations energy needs without it. If we build more nuclear power plants we will have that many more individuals with the knowledge to proliferate all kinds of nuclear technology. How is the increased chance of misuse of the technology going to be dealt with? The main reason I can see for more nukes is to keep generation restricted to a few entities, therefore giving those producers more control. Would California have avoided energy problems if Enron was in control of nuclear power plants instead of conventional ones? IMO not.

[insane_alien]

Nuclear power is both unnecessary and dangerous or I would whole-heartedly support it as well.

 

its not that dangerous, there are independant redunant safety mechanisms on all modern plants. heck, in a modern plant you can have the reactor undergo a complete meltdown and it will not be a big environmental issue.

 

There are so many alternatives and more being developed all the time that we can supply all of civilizations energy needs without it.

 

yes, it is theoretically possible, but we need an intermediate to transition to them while they mature.

 

If we build more nuclear power plants we will have that many more individuals with the knowledge to proliferate all kinds of nuclear technology.

 

reactor design and bomb design are two very very different things. besides which, even a high school student will know the basic principles behind both, assuming sufficient resources, it would not be hard for any nation to develop its own nuclear technology.

 

How is the increased chance of misuse of the technology going to be dealt with? The main reason I can see for more nukes is to keep generation restricted to a few entities, therefore giving those producers more control. Would California have avoided energy problems if Enron was in control of nuclear power plants instead of conventional ones? IMO not.

 

but there won't be an increased chance. as it will be on the same order of magnitude as it is today.

[bascule]

Nuclear power is both unnecessary

 

America needs as much non-petroleum based energy as it can get right now.

 

and dangerous

 

More Americans have been killed by wind power (13) than nuclear power (0)

[npts2020]

How can you say that proliferation is not a dangeous thing? Or claim that with more individuals versed in nuclear technology that chances of proliferation are not increased? You have never seen me make any statement about the safety of any reactor only statements about proliferating the technology being dangerous. Why is anything needed before making a transition to other alternatives? It seems to me that erecting windmills, solar panels, building tidal and geothermal plants can all happen at least as quickly as building any nuclear power plants and without the problems. I agree that building a power plant or a bomb are different but not so different that a person who can build one couldn't build the other. So why is it again that chances of proliferation won't be increased? Last question I have is why is concentrating energy production in fewer hands a good thing?

[insane_alien]

chances of proliferation will not be increased because technical know how is not the limiting factor.

 

the knowledge for how to build a nuclear bomb/reactor is public. anybody could go look it up.

 

the limiting factor for proliferation is that governments monitor anyone buying materials and machinery required to support the building of a reactor/bomb. for the chances of proliferation to be increased you would have to decrease the monitoring powers which i don't think anyone is likely to do.

[bascule]

How can you say that proliferation is not a dangeous thing?

 

IA already covered this:

 

reactor design and bomb design are two very very different things

 

What you learn from building a nuclear power plant (unless it's a breeder reactor) isn't really applicable to building a nuclear weapon.

 

It seems to me that erecting windmills, solar panels, building tidal and geothermal plants can all happen at least as quickly as building any nuclear power plants and without the problems.

 

Yes, except the nuclear plants will make more energy for the same amount of manpower and construction time. Also, what problems were those again?

 

I agree that building a power plant or a bomb are different but not so different that a person who can build one couldn't build the other.

 

Building a nuclear weapon requires extensive knowledge of how to build ultracentrifuges to refine the uranium up to weapons grade, then knowledge of the incredibly difficult task of building an implosion lens, where precisely placed pieces of uranium ore are packed with precise amounts of conventional explosive which must be detonated in the proper order to bring about a nuclear chain reaction. People who work at nuclear power plants are never going to learn how to do this.

 

So why is it again that chances of proliferation won't be increased?

 

Because the skills aren't applicable. Someone working at a nuclear power plant isn't going to have any more idea about how to build a nuclear bomb than your average high school student.

 

Last question I have is why is concentrating energy production in fewer hands a good thing?

 

Because it's less infrastructure to maintain?

[ParanoiA]

Yes, except the nuclear plants will make more energy for the same amount of manpower and construction time. Also, what problems were those again?

 

What about nuclear waste? Is there a responsible solution for that?

 

Last question I have is why is concentrating energy production in fewer hands a good thing?

 

Because it's less infrastructure to maintain?

 

I don't know if that's a good enough reason to dismiss the consolidated power structure of energy supply. I like the idea of a saturated source of energy providers, at least for the safer energy solutions.

[insane_alien]

nuclear waste can be buried. we know that it is possible to use geological featuresto seal up nuclear waste effectively as there are(or rather were) massive natural nuclear reactors. which have left nuclear waste rich rock behind. it has not had adverse effects on the surface.

 

a man made cavern would be even more effective as it would have maintenance and checks periodically performed on it. also, it would probably be possible to use the heat generated by the decay for extra power.

[Mr Skeptic]

I too think we need nuclear power as an intermediate before going green or inventing fusion. It is a good, safe, reliable source, and produces constant power as opposed to wind an solar. It would make a good supplement to provide baseload power.

 

As npts2020 said, nuclear proliferation is the greatest concern. A reactor of any design could be used to provide neutrons for making plutonium, thereby bypassing the uranium enrichment requirement for a bomb (it could be separated chemically). Also, the waste needs to be protected from people (not the other way around!). Putting it in a salt mine should keep us safe from it, but it will need guarding so criminals don't try to acquire some to make a radioactive bomb. We could also use careful positioning to allow plate techtonics to take it down into the earth's mantle.

[insane_alien]

yeah, with the current renewable energy sources they are far too variable to be effectively used, especially for base load applications.

 

lets say the uk switched to a mix of solar and wind power. now, its winter time so solar isn't quite pulling its weight and we have a high pressure system sitting over the country(as happens on occasion) so wind is also not pulling its weight. couple this with the fact that we will not have a substantial base in either coal oil or gas energy production at this stage we're going to be experiencing at the very least, rolling blackouts. if this continues for long enough then important infrastructure will fail, like water treatment plants. if water treatment plants fail then river pollution will go up and bring the dissolved oxygen level down and kill off the british fish farming industry. and thats just one way its a stupid idea to build up reliance on inherently unreliable power sources.

 

we NEED something to provide a solid, never gonna fail base power production day and night. whether its been dark and calm for a night or a year.

 

nuclear is an excellent way to go until we can develop something better.

[bascule]

What about nuclear waste? Is there a responsible solution for that?

 

The afforementioned Yucca Mountain facility, which was originally scheduled for completion this September. However, due to underfunding (even among what would otherwise be a pro-nuclear Republican Congress, although Democrats like Harry Reid have tried to kill the project entirely) it won't be completed until at least 2017, at current funding levels anyway.

 

nuclear is an excellent way to go until we can develop something better.

 

Nuclear fission is an excellent way to go until we can better develop nuclear fusion

[foodchain]

yeah, with the current renewable energy sources they are far too variable to be effectively used, especially for base load applications.

 

lets say the uk switched to a mix of solar and wind power. now, its winter time so solar isn't quite pulling its weight and we have a high pressure system sitting over the country(as happens on occasion) so wind is also not pulling its weight. couple this with the fact that we will not have a substantial base in either coal oil or gas energy production at this stage we're going to be experiencing at the very least, rolling blackouts. if this continues for long enough then important infrastructure will fail, like water treatment plants. if water treatment plants fail then river pollution will go up and bring the dissolved oxygen level down and kill off the british fish farming industry. and thats just one way its a stupid idea to build up reliance on inherently unreliable power sources.

 

we NEED something to provide a solid, never gonna fail base power production day and night. whether its been dark and calm for a night or a year.

 

nuclear is an excellent way to go until we can develop something better.

 

Thats a great point.

 

I think in the U.S. Solar energy would have a huge payoff for states like California or Arizona just to name a few. These are places where maybe some kind of mega solar center can be placed along with basically integrating solar into the city via building code laws or what not. In other places geothermal might be an option. I personally favor a portfolio type of situation really in which more then one source contributes to energy production and consumption. That being said nuclear does bug me. One thing that comes to mind is we have to deal with materials that can exist forever as far as humanity is concerned. I don't think anything else exists to deal with this stuff past burying it, and on top of this how much waste would be produced by a world set on nuclear for a power source let alone just America or the U.K in time really?

[Severian]

Nuclear fission is an excellent way to go until we can better develop nuclear fusion

 

Much as it pains me to agree with bascule, he's right!

 

Furthermore, the most sensible energy policy right now would be to treat the development of commercially viable nuclear fusion as a top priority goal for our society, just as sending a man to the moon was in the 60s.

[Sisyphus]

Nuclear, despite its shortcomings (not least of which is its dependency on mining stuff out of the ground somewhere), is currently by far our best option for backup electricity production. It will remain so even if wind and solar were made comparably cheap, because of the latter's inherent inconsistency. However, it seems to me that would change if there was an effective way to efficiently "store" electricity for long periods on an enormous scale. Perhaps that, together with upgrading infrastructure to handle much greater load, should be the focus of the "energy Manhattan project" that everyone is talking about.

[bascule]

Basically what it comes down to is while our planet has a finite supply of fissile uranium which can be used for generating nuclear power, by the time we exhaust that we'll more than likely have come up with a solution for efficient fusion power production.

 

The oil train is getting far more expensive to ride, and coal is comparatively expensive. If it weren't so goddamn hard to build new power plants, we'd be well on our way to fission emerging at the primary power source for our girid. So hop on the fission train. Wind and solar are great and all, but nuclear power is a proven, reliable technology with a consistent level of power production.

[Saryctos]

Another angle is that the more nuclear waste we create, the more funding towards getting rid of it or containing it. The more funding going into containing radiation the safer space travel becomes(I heard that radiation is a big hurdle for long ranged manned spaceflight).

 

I think the best solution for electricity in this country would be a stronger decentralization of the power grid. Get more smaller generation facilities. Make it easier for households and businesses to 'meter out', allowing excess energy back onto the grid. I don't mean getting rid of the big plants/energy farms, but the idea of having a more resilient infrastructure means less catastrophic black outs and less waste energy over transmission lines.