[Milton]

Nuclear energy does not yield net energy. The amount of energy necessary to mine and process the uranium and transport it to and from the nuclear plant, plus all the other energy expenditures necessary to run the plant and personnel exceeds the amount of energy produced. Then of course there is the problem of what to do with the waste products, make depleted uranium armaments, put it into consumer goods, dump it in the ocean or bury it underground. There is no way to dispose of the waste in an environmentally responsible manner.<br /> <br /> Wind power generation is a good regenerative energy source. Electricity can be dumped onto the net or stored in batteries or used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen which can be stored for later use.<br /> <br /> Geothermal is a good source of heat for heating your house or water, I don't think large scale power generation is a good idea though. <br /> <br /> Solar energy is a good source of electricity for regions that receive a lot of sunlight. <br /> <br /> Tidal power is controversial because of the effects it might generate.<br /> <br /> Temperature differential power generation is also a potential winner. A mile long pipe is stood up in the ocean. The water at the surface is hotter than the water at the pipe bottom. The hot and cold water are attracted to each other and the waters rushing together can be made to turn a turbine and generate electricity.<br /> <br /> All methods of electricity production have pros and cons. Nuclear power production is a neo-con pipe dream.<br /> <br /> Here is a link which will broaden your enquiry <a href="http://www.buckminster.info/Biblio/About/About-BkTOC-EnergyEarthAndEveryone.htm">Energy, Earth and Everyone</a> When you have finished reading the chapter titles, there is a home link which will take you to one of Bucky's sites and more info.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= FootPrints] <br /> Geothermal: renewable heat energy can be harnessed from deep within the earth. <br /> <br /> Wind: turbines turning in the air convert kinetic energy in the wind into electricity. <br /> <br /> Solar: the sun’s energy can be captured and used to produce heat and electricity. <br /> <br /> Tidal: using the movement of the ocean to power turbines and generate electricity. <br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> These are all great sources. I heard there are over 50 homes in Edmonton powered by Geothermal energy.<br /> <br /> If you're worried about nuclear waste, look up 'breeder reactor'. All the power, less waste. but for some reason, illegal in the States.<br />

[Milton]

I don't know where you are getting your info on "breeder reactors", Dr C, but as far as I know fast breeder reactors were built and are operating in the united states and one of the reasons for building them was that they produced plutonium which was incorporated in their dirty bombs. And plutonium doesn't go away for many millions of moons. Nuclear reactors are an ecological environmental disaster.<br /> <br /> Yes, there are homes in the Edmonton area which use geothermal power for heat, I have worked on some of them. The ones I worked on are using geothermal for heat purposes and I don't know of any that are producing electricity this way.

[FootPrints]

Milton, I went to the link you left and couldn't find anything to "click" to actually read it. I went to his home page and had no luck there. Any suggestions?<br /> <br /> Geez, that site is way out of my league, but I would like to read the one you posted. Thanks

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Milton] I don't know where you are getting your info on "breeder reactors", Dr C, but as far as I know fast breeder reactors were built and are operating in the united states and one of the reasons for building them was that they produced plutonium which was incorporated in their dirty bombs. And plutonium doesn't go away for many millions of moons. Nuclear reactors are an ecological environmental disaster.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Yes, in 1977, jimmy Carter made the further production of breeder reactors illegal. <br /> <br /> http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm<br /> <br /> [quote]"At its best, the Breeder Reactor system produces no nuclear waste whatever - literally everything eventually gets used"[/quote]<br /> <br /> I've read this from a number of different sources. For example:<br /> <br /> <a href='http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=site%3Afas.org+breeder+reactor+waste&btnG=Search&meta='>Google search</a><br /> <br /> or: <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor'>Wiki Link</a><br /> <br /> From what I can find out, a Fast Breeder produces waste, but a regular rate Breeder eventually uses all it's fuel up.<br /> <br /> I don't know of any geothermal installation in Edmonton that generate their own electricity ethier, and can't find if there are any installers that offer it ethier. But, since the best place for these seems to be acreages, I guess a wind turbine would be a good idea <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'><br /> <br /> http://www.rbamech.ab.ca/heating-contractors/geo_faq.html<br /> <br />

[Milton]

FootPrints, take each chapter title and google it. This should yield some easily digestible explanations. Try looking in libraries in your area for the book if you want to read it. Buckminster Fuller has his own unique method of communicating and once you catch the drift it is clear sailing. Here is an article <a href="http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ESIGW.php">Energy Strategies in Global Warming: Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?</a> .<br /> <br /> Dr C, I would like to see any links you might have which suggest that a reactor of any type is going to use up its fuel and not leave a pile of radioactive waste.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Milton]<br /> Dr C, I would like to see any links you might have which suggest that a reactor of any type is going to use up its fuel and not leave a pile of radioactive waste.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Your wish is my command, sir!<br /> <br /> <a href='http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html'>Here's</a> a little FAQ from Stanford, about Nuclear energy in general. It touches on Breeders and reprocessing in general.<br /> <br /> The Integral Fast Reactor:<br /> "Once the initial fuel is loaded no fuel goes in and no waste comes out for the entire 70 year life cycle."<br /> <a href='http://www.canadiangrassroots.ca/article.php?sid=9530&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0'>Link</a><br /> <br /> <br /> Some Breeder Reactor programs, such as in Japan, are used as 'reprocessing' facilities. ie: the spent fuel from regular reactors is transported to the breeder and 'recharged' back into good Uranium. Using the breeder in this way produced more toxic waste than the regular piles alone. Plus, transporting the stuff is dangerous.<br /> <br /> And finally, another alternative, <a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html'>Pebble Bed Reactors</a><br />

[sthompson]

Re nuclear power, note that it was a big issue at the G8 summit, where <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/">Bush recommended that we fight global warming by using more nuclear power</a>. Meanwhile, the U.S. doesn't necessarily want ALL countries to develop nuclear power for energy. <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000101&sid=aTUroR_7VrYM&refer=japan">South Korea has offered to give North Korea electricity</a> in order to end its need for a nuclear power plant (supported by Condoleeza Rice). And on a side note <a href="http://english.people.com.cn/200507/12/eng20050712_195522.html">South Africa has said it supports Iran's position</a> that countries have a right to develop nuclear power for peacful purposes (ie elecricity).<br /> <br /> Wind energy sounds great, but unfortunately I think the impact on birds is still very controversial. Big news in the States this week actually about a wind farm in Altamont California that has apparently been killing thousands of predatory birds, many of them state protected, and is being sued by an environmental group as a result. See: <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html">Center for Biological Diversity</a><br /> CNN: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/06/deadly.wind.power.ap/">Activists seek to curb bird deaths at wind farm</a><br /> <a href="http://www.electricityforum.com/news/dec03/birdkill.html">Wind farm faces protest over bird kills</a><br /> <a href="http://www.insidebayarea.com/timesstar/localnews/ci_2842322">Wind farms pitch plan to address bird deaths</a><br /> <br /> I've also seen info on plans to use similar turbines underwater to make use of currents (I think on the Discovery TV show Daily Planet), but perhaps that could have a detrimental effect on ocean life--I would worry that it would be similar to having a field of propellors underwater. It would certainly seem wise to place to at least place such energy farms away from the migration and habitat of endangered species.<br /> <br /> Milton, I'd heard about geothermal systems buried under new buildings and used for heating and cooling homes (mainly US info) and I'm very interested that you've worked on them. Do you know where people can get more info on installing them, both in Canada and in Alberta? (My husband and I are planning on building a home within the next two years so I am personally interested, but others may also be.) I'd also read they're still fairly expensive, possibly prohibitively so for the bulk of the population--is that true?

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= sthompson]<br /> Milton, I'd heard about geothermal systems buried under new buildings and used for heating and cooling homes (mainly US info) and I'm very interested that you've worked on them. Do you know where people can get more info on installing them, both in Canada and in Alberta? (My husband and I are planning on building a home within the next two years so I am personally interested, but others may also be.) I'd also read they're still fairly expensive, possibly prohibitively so for the bulk of the population--is that true?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> No, costs are higher than natural gas heating and air contitioning, but the energy savings pay for themselves within 10 years or so. On Global news I remember them saying (while interviewing an Edmonton comany that installs these systems) that the costs are $15k - $30k on top of a new home. <br /> <br /> <a href='http://www.rbamech.ab.ca/heating-contractors/geo_faq.html'>Linkie</a><br /> From the link: "Basically, a complete geothermal heat system is $15,000 +. Currently, we service all of Alberta, Canada only. "<br />

[gaulois]

The power grid needs to be distributed including the generation. I would have no problem with small scale (regulated) nuclear reactors.

[Milton]

Susan, have a look at this site.<br /> <a href="http://www.earthenergy.ca/dir.html">Earth Energy</a>

[Brother Jonathan]

Answering the original questions, the second one first: yes, there are other options, as many people have pointed out. The theoretically easiest (yet practically most difficult) option is conservation. Where do you usually set your thermostat during the winter? How low are you willing to set it? How often do you use your car/truck/motorcycle? How far are you willing to walk/bike/ride/&c. to avoid using it?<br /> <br /> Nuclear energy, like all other forms of energy, has its pros and cons. Each jurisdiction has its own conclusions from the nuclear cost/benefit analysis — France and Japan have chosen to depend heavily upon nuclear energy. In 2002, Canada consumed 2.31 TW·hours of nuclear energy per million people — about one-third of the French per capita.<br /> <br /> Personally, I find nuclear energy a bit too “Big Science”. I’d much prefer energy generation to be broadly distributed, so that the “not in my backyard” viewpoint becomes extinct due to ubiquity — I doubt that reactors will ever be so widespread. If I were given a windfall to be spent exclusively on energy generation, I’d tend towards geothermal (since the neighbours shouldn’t have æsthetic complaints about a device in my basement) and biodiesel.

[Milton]

Wind energy is the safest, environmentally friendly method of generating electricity. Birds are not at danger from windmills because the blades do not turn very fast. Birds are more in danger from airports and pesticides and GM food sources. Big energy companies love to make up stuff about wind power generation so that they can get people to ignore the best, cheapest, safest energy production method there is. Yes, setting the thermostat more wisely will result in using less energy. Using appliances that require less energy would be even better. Do you think the mega corps will be producing state of the art energy efficient devices while they still own shares in enrgy companies?

[Brother Jonathan]

I’d guess that the safest, most environmentally friendly method of generating electricity would be the harnessing of human muscle, such as riding an exercise bicycle hooked up to a generator (though that’s certainly not the most efficient generation method). Windmill malfunctions, particularly of those 100+ metre high models, have a large damage potential.<br /> <br /> Curiously enough, the Vermont chapter of Big Energy is pushing wind power in my region, and it’s the everyday folk here who are opposed to establishing it (roughly 2:1 opposed).<br /> <br /> You’re right that conservation includes the use of energy efficient appliances. However, one usually needs a wad of cash to get an efficient refrigerator or washer — turning down the thermostat or leaving the vehicle in the driveway requires no more money up front than bus/subway fare.<br /> <br /> Which megacorporations do you have in mind? General Electric sells compact fluorescent bulbs as well as incandescents. Intel sells energy efficient CPUs (mainly targeted to laptops) as well as the garden variety. Toyota and Honda have found markets for their hybrid cars, and VW is preparing for cleaner diesel fuel standards appearing in North America in 2007. (That’s when they’ll start selling diesel vehicles again in states that follow the California emissions standards…like Vermont.) Any sane business model will focus on selling what their customers seek — and we’ve <i>finally</i> made energy efficiency a priority!

[Milton]

Any sane business model concentrates on making sense and not cents. Any sane economic system requires that all subsystems make sense before they are allowed to make cents. Alas, we have insane business and economic systems.<br /> <br /> There are windmill models which have propellers which turn fast enough to shred birds but the models I envisage being used (Darius, etc) would not be allowed to spin fast enough to do that. Also, windmills do not have to be located in communities, just close to them. If the choice is between fouling the air, land and water I assume people will eventually see the benefits of windmills. Windmills do not have to be placed willy nilly all over the place until the landscape looks like a run of the mill nightmare. Only corporations trying to make cents and a criminally insane economic system allows that to happen.