# Congressional inaction



## Dune (Aug 17, 2008)

What the heck is wrong with congress? Eight times this year the extension of the renewable energy tax credit bill has failed to pass. It expires in December of this year. Who do these people listen to, the oil companies or the people, and do any of us try to influence them at all? My representative, Delahunt, has never even given the courtesy of a return phone call or even a form letter. Meanwhile all kinds of green startups are on hold, unable to get bank financing because of congress's inaction. And what about the food for fuel program stuffed down our throats, causing higher food and fuel prices and poorer gas mileage. Why not just admit it was a mistake and end it immediately? Or even not admit it was a mistake but end it anyhow. We are in far too desperate a situation for special interests to continue to prevail. Call or write your local bozo and let them know you vote.


----------



## retiredff (Aug 17, 2008)

I agree 100%. Congress is paid off by big business/lobbyists! Our only hope as taxpayers/voters is to vote out the current group of lifers/leaches/do-nothings and vote in some new people with instructions as to what the people want. After all, they do work for us...


----------



## webbie (Aug 17, 2008)

I'm certain folks know how the vote went.....the Dems tried to pass it eight times, and the GOP kicked it down because they do not want the tax credits paid for (by rolling back big oil tax breaks given when oil was cheap).....

Not trying to be partisan about it, but it is important to note exactly what has happened. The same folks jumping up and down to drill more are somehow silent when it comes to this....

http://tinyurl.com/6o7ele

The 7 earlier attempts were blocked by the GOP for other reasons, while the current one they claim it must allow offshore drilling.....always an excuse! This is a RENEWABLE energy bill, and you can always pass other energy bills later.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 18, 2008)

Go Nuclear Power!


----------



## retiredff (Aug 18, 2008)

I would go along with nuke power if and when they find a way to dispose of the spent rods, or find a use for it. Burying it won't work.


----------



## webbie (Aug 18, 2008)

Well, once you ask for a fuel life solution, they will hem and haw and say "we'll figure it out"....the truth is they don't have a solution, nor do they expect to....AND, any solution which is even 1/2 way reasonable adds so much to the cost of the power that Nukes become just one more way of borrowing from our children and future generations.

Big in the news lately - some MASSIVE solar plants being built in the southwest and Ca. 

It is true, however, that the holdups on the renewable tax credits are slowing down our potential progress. What a shame.


----------



## Catskill (Aug 18, 2008)

retiredff said:
			
		

> Burying it won't work.


Doesn't the fuel come out of the ground in the first place?

Edit: Agreeing with the original poster, the govt need to get off their @ss asap and and bring alt. energy front and center with a comprehensive policy.


----------



## webbie (Aug 18, 2008)

Catskill said:
			
		

> retiredff said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, Uranium, Anthrax and lots of other stuff is very "natural".

Tetrodotoxin is another good natural seafood.

We could always powder the waste and have folks sprinkle it on their Wheaties......


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 18, 2008)

Reprocess the spent fuel, like Iran plans to, lol.
Electric cars, electric heat, electric everything.
Energy independence, no human-caused global warming (for you misled believers).
Plus, you wouldn't have wind turbines cluttering up the view off Martha's Vineyard.


----------



## Catskill (Aug 18, 2008)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> Energy independence, no human-caused global warming (for you misled believers).
> Plus, you wouldn't have wind turbines cluttering up the view off Martha's Vineyard.



Go getum' Velvetfoot!  :coolgrin:


----------



## Turbozcs2003 (Aug 18, 2008)

Pelosi closed congress for "vacation" because she didnt want a vote on drilling

I agree we should get 100% write off on any energy upgrade for our homes. Insualtion, heating systems etc should be on the table.

Also nukes sound good to me, along with new refineries, offshore rigs etc.


time for multi-tasked approach instead of politics as usual.


----------



## smokinj (Aug 18, 2008)

renewable engery will work but your right they will some how blow it in congress. a good system for my area (wind and solor grid tied 15000.00) some tax breaks and Iam all in.


----------



## TMonter (Aug 18, 2008)

> Reprocess the spent fuel, like Iran plans to, lol.



We already do but the problem is reprocessing produces a lot of high level waste.

Look into Lake Karachay in Russia for an example.



> Electric cars, electric heat, electric everything.



Electric cars are not viable without a viable storage medium


----------



## Dune (Aug 18, 2008)

Not to be disagreeable but what do you mean by a viable storage medium? Are you saying there are no viable batterys for electric cars? Electric cars are exremely viable today, and are getting better all the time. Electric cars and trucks is the most important component in any plan to burn less oil. The average american drives 30 miles a day, and even a cheesy converted electric car with old fashioned lead acid batteries will go 50 miles. Modern lithium ion batteries will go 200 miles on a single charge.


----------



## TMonter (Aug 18, 2008)

> Not to be disagreeable but what do you mean by a viable storage medium? Are you saying there are no viable batterys for electric cars? Electric cars are exremely viable today, and are getting better all the time. Electric cars and trucks is the most important component in any plan to burn less oil. The average american drives 30 miles a day, and even a cheesy converted electric car with old fashioned lead acid batteries will go 50 miles. Modern lithium ion batteries will go 200 miles on a single charge.



At what cost? Viable means it must be cost effective, not just possible.

If a 50 mile range were that easy for a reasonable cost electric cars would be widespread. They aren't. Even a standard Lead-Acid battery has a relatively high cost per unit of energy.

Viable also means it has to be at or below the cost of a gasoline automobile, must have the option for a 300 mile range and must not have a high upkeep cost.

Lets be realistic, there currently is no viable electric car in the marketplace. We need an honest to goodness solution, not pie-in-the-sky claims or rhetoric.

P.S. Please don't trot out the Tesla, it's a $100,000 toy that is not a marketable car for most people.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 18, 2008)

You will be converting water into hydrogen and oxygen with the limitless and cost-effective electricity produced by nuclear power.
If you want to take a long drive, it will be on hydrogen.
It's not a matter for the dilettantes anymore.
It is a matter of survival.

Go nuclear!


----------



## TMonter (Aug 18, 2008)

Hydrogen has the same problem as batteries currently, it cannot be stored effectively and the evaporation rates in current storage medium is unacceptable. I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here but as I said we need realistic solutions not rhetoric.


----------



## webbie (Aug 18, 2008)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> You will be converting water into hydrogen and oxygen with the limitless and cost-effective electricity produced by nuclear power.
> Go nuclear!



Of course, the rest of the world will claim they should do the same, and it will awfully hard to stop even more nuclear proliferation. But the air will be cleaner until a nuclear war starts.

The fact is that the "free market" will not allow nukes to grow, because no sane company would want to take responsibility for the future storage of the waste. And, although this may be hard to believe, civilization will not come to an end if we use less energy per capita than we do today. 

Most of this stuff is already baked into the cake. Conservation and natural gas are the bridge fuels, while a mix of renewables along with oil will be the future......at least for the next 2 generations or so. It is highly doubtful that nuclear will grow at the same rate as renewables, again because people (consumer) and companies don't want it (they don't want to pay for it long term).

Solve the waste problem, and then let us know......until then, it is empty rhetoric. Survival is not at stake.....if you don't get a Harman (or a nuke plant) tomorrow.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 19, 2008)

Rhetoric?  Nuclear power is still providing a significant percentage of US electricity, despite the fact that no new nuke here in the US has been built for a number of years.  Other countries, sure, but not us.  We've got 1000 mW natural gas plants sucking down all that high quality fuel.

If it's cloudy, (or night!), or windless, these units are still cranking out the energy. The NRC has accepted applications for 15 new nuke plants and there are more in the pipeline, so to speak:  http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf

Sure, coal may be a little cheaper now, but wait 'til the bill comes for the new plants that will have to be built to satisfy the enviro people, never mind costs for sequestering the massive amounts of CO2 for the human-caused global warming fuzzy headed people.  I've lived next to oil, coal and nuke plants, and would much prefer the nuke.

Nuclear can power the hydrogen economy, and you could be driving a fuel cell or hydrogen powered car before too long.  I was parked next to a Honda fuel cell car for a while at work, but never drove it.

The federal government will support the new nukes-it is now a matter of national security.

The time is now for the resurgence of nuclear power.  It'll power your Chevy Volt: www.Chevrolet.com/electriccar . 

Be positive for the future!  We don't have to burn all the forests to stay warm!

http://www.nei.org/


----------



## webbie (Aug 19, 2008)

Rhetoric because the chances that a lot will be built - given the pushback caused by no one wanting the waste stored in their backyard - are small IMHO.

Not claiming that they are insignificant now.....the facts are out there, they are a part of the mix. But, repeating once again, we have not paid for the present plants because we have not figured out how to dispose of their waste. How can we possibly figure out the economics of something where the waste must be protected for more years than man has existed! A tough one! 

Would people want nukes if the true cost was double or triple the cost? I think the answer is clear - they would not. So the choice is to, once again, completely forget about the "debt" and the legacy we are leaving for our children, just so we can waste more today....or, come to our sense and do true life-cycle costing. 

As everyone knows, the only reason nukes even can exist is that the "nanny state" government stands behind them as far as insurance. In the "free market", they cannot exist. I was under the impression that most folks here didn't like all that "nanny state" business, and they think technology should pretty much prove its' merits or else go the way of the dodo bird. It's one thing for government to help create an industry, but for them to use taxpayer money for 10's of thousands of years to "insure" the nuke plants is going a little overboard IMHO.


----------



## Dune (Aug 19, 2008)

Velvetfoot, Thanks for the link to the Volt. Good to get updated on that. Tmonter, DIYelectric car forum.com, lists seven companies selling ready to drive, all electric cars, one of which has a range of over 300 miles/charge. Is there room for improvement, of course. Is the technology viable today? Yes, resoundingly so.  What is not viable today and never will be is hydrogen fuel cell tech. This is just wool over our eyes, by the gov. and the oil and car companys. Just a big distraction, a promise to keep us waiting, using oil and waiting for the mythical fuel cell which will solve everything someday(not).


----------



## mbcijim (Aug 19, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> I'm certain folks know how the vote went.....the Dems tried to pass it eight times, and the GOP kicked it down because they do not want the tax credits paid for (by rolling back big oil tax breaks given when oil was cheap).....
> 
> Not trying to be partisan about it, but it is important to note exactly what has happened. The same folks jumping up and down to drill more are somehow silent when it comes to this....
> 
> ...



You say you're trying not to be partisan, but you are.  You could turn the statement around if you are pro-drilling and say "The Democrats want renewables, but they won't drill..."  I think statements like yours (and the vice-versa statement) are what are destroying this country.  Your both wrong... and right.  Why can't we have both renewables and more drilling?  Because R's and D's can't give on anything.   Let's cooperate.  It may mean giving a little instead of polarizing the other side. 

And second of all, you are perpetuating the myth (by your other statements in this post) that creating renewable electric fuels solves the oil transporation problem.  They don't.  Just because we build a solar plant to add 800 MW of electric to the grid doesn't help move one car from California to Florida.    The two fuels have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  So solving one problem doesn't solves the other.


----------



## tkirk22 (Aug 19, 2008)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> You will be converting water into hydrogen and oxygen with the limitless and cost-effective electricity produced by nuclear power.
> If you want to take a long drive, it will be on hydrogen.
> It's not a matter for the dilettantes anymore.
> It is a matter of survival.
> ...



I just picked up a Popular Mechanics magazine, and indeed Hydrogen fuel cells are just around the corner. It looks like a fairly simple process that could be implemented in months if we wanted. 

One thing that I forgot to mention is that the magazine is 50 years old from 1958.  :roll:


----------



## Telco (Aug 19, 2008)

The R's said they'd go with the renewable if more drilling is allowed, so it's in the D's court.  IF they put it in, then they can get the renewable act passed.  No problem.  

So far as nuke fuel, Carter signed an order saying the US won't be involved in fuel reprocessing.  End result:  30 years of no progress, and a buildup of nuclear waste.  Fuel reprocessing would have solved some of the problem with storing nuke waste.  So, end the ban on reprocessing, and let's start building those breeder reactors.  With them, we can stop using petroleum for non-motive uses like we do now.  Picture the usage of petroleum if the entire northeast were no longer burning fuel oil to heat their homes.  That's 23 percent of the current use of petroleum in the US.  If natural gas were no longer used in the home, and all houses were heated with electricity instead, that natural gas could be used for this hydrogen economy or for other motive fuel uses.  

And I'm not saying go nuke and call it a done deal.  That BMW plant discussed in another thread is an outstanding way of doing things too.  We need more juice in the daytime at night anyway, at least until the plugin car really takes off, so this would help build the bridge to the future.  

The biggest problem I see is nobody wants to implement an imperfect solution.  As Soviet Admiral Sergei Georgievich Gorshkov said, "Perfect is the enemy of good enough."  The problem with energy is nobody wants to do anything new unless it emits no pollution, is completely invisible and provides all power for all needs, right off the bat, and will fulfill all our needs forever and ever.  We have nothing like this now.  So we need to go with the imperfect solutions that are good enough RIGHT NOW, while striving for better.  When we have better, implement it then.  We all know that barring some technological leap that electricity is the way it's going to be, so implementing any and all solutions that move as much to electrical power as possible, is the way to go right now.  Build those nukes, build those hydro dams, build those solar installations.  Get 'em up.  We can always decommission them later, and in the meantime we can lift the reprocessing ban and work on ALL ways of getting rid of the waste.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 19, 2008)

eggzackly!


----------



## webbie (Aug 19, 2008)

The R's turned this thing down a number of times before the drilling even entered the picture. The drilling is the newest kink. The main problem, all along, is that the R's did not want to PAY for the bill. They may have passed it, but just dug us further into debt for the payment. 

A post here is way too short to go over each and every time this bill came up, along with all the nuances. I expect our readers can do that for themselves. The fact remains that it could have been passed a NUMBER of times with no problem.....whether it contained drilling offshore, ANWAR or not - because it does not disallow those things...they are be separate battles....some involving states rights, etc.

The point is, if this bill is mostly good, pass it and then start on the next things. To hold it up for months and years because of something they thought of LONG after the bill was crafted (offshore drilling) is just holding us hostage. We need a LOT of legislation and plans and it has to start somewhere....in the meanwhile, we get nowhere (and in the case of solar and wind tax credits, we go backwards)....

But, then again, I suspect many people already know that. 

As far as building nukes and decomissioning them later, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but stupid planning got us here, and building things that are not going to pay off (or even MIGHT not pay off) is more of the same. So if you like where we are now and want to go further down the same road.....build nukes and drill more! Worked perfect last time.


----------



## webbie (Aug 19, 2008)

For those actually following the votes from the "do nothing" congress, here is one that missed by ONE VOTE.

http://tinyurl.com/66ogp9

Notice that got 59 votes in the Senate, which means a few GOP'ers joined their Dem friends to attempt a veto-proof majority....because Bush doesn't want this stuff....you have to get over him by having 60 votes.

OK, so there was 59 votes FOR and 40 Against........BUT, there are 100 Senators.........what happened to the last vote?

I see, one Senator was missing from the roll call. John McCain. Obviously his vote was NO, since his absence caused it to fail.

I don't see the "do nothing" congress - I see one trying to pass some good bills, which the Presidents wants to veto...


----------



## bostonbaked (Aug 19, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> Not to be disagreeable but what do you mean by a viable storage medium? Are you saying there are no viable batterys for electric cars? Electric cars are exremely viable today, and are getting better all the time. Electric cars and trucks is the most important component in any plan to burn less oil. The average american drives 30 miles a day, and even a cheesy converted electric car with old fashioned lead acid batteries will go 50 miles. Modern lithium ion batteries will go 200 miles on a single charge.


  This I think address some of the storage issues. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html


----------



## Telco (Aug 19, 2008)

The problem is that fuel got cheap and we got complacent.  Whether we would do so again or not, I don't know, but I do know that we've gotta have that juice.  I think that the difference this time, if we drill more and build nukes, is that eco-friendly is more mainstream than the last time we had energy issues, in the 70s.  Back then tree huggers were restricted to stinking hippies whining at the man, this time those stinking hippies are showered up, clean cut;  the tree-huggers ARE the man.  I think now we would be smart enough to use more drilling and more nukes as a means to an end, instead of an end unto itself as it was leaving the 70s.  We all know that our ways need to change.  Even if gasoline went back to a buck a gallon, I won't be going back to my gearhead ways of bigger is better.  Instead I'm going to try going electric and make a viable performance vehicle that way.


----------



## mbcijim (Aug 20, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> *The R's turned this thing down a number of times before the drilling even entered the picture. The drilling is the newest kink*. The main problem, all along, is that the R's did not want to PAY for the bill. They may have passed it, but just dug us further into debt for the payment.



http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/anwr-drilling-supporters-lose-senate/story.aspx?guid={BEB9B292-BA87-4CE1-972F-169C02C15736}

Senate blocked ANWR vote in 2002.  So I think you have your timing backwards.


----------



## mbcijim (Aug 20, 2008)

Telco said:
			
		

> The R's said they'd go with the renewable if more drilling is allowed, so it's in the D's court.  IF they put it in, then they can get the renewable act passed.  No problem.
> 
> So far as nuke fuel, Carter signed an order saying the US won't be involved in fuel reprocessing.  End result:  30 years of no progress, and a buildup of nuclear waste.  Fuel reprocessing would have solved some of the problem with storing nuke waste.  So, end the ban on reprocessing, and let's start building those breeder reactors.  With them, we can stop using petroleum for non-motive uses like we do now.  Picture the usage of petroleum if the entire northeast were no longer burning fuel oil to heat their homes.  That's 23 percent of the current use of petroleum in the US.  If natural gas were no longer used in the home, and all houses were heated with electricity instead, that natural gas could be used for this hydrogen economy or for other motive fuel uses.
> 
> ...



Have a link for describing fuel reprocessing?  I'd like to read up on it.

The last half of your post is superb.   Never thought of it that way, but that truly is the problem.  Excellent post Telco.


----------



## webbie (Aug 20, 2008)

Telco said:
			
		

> We all know that our ways need to change.



So, all of a sudden hundreds of millions of people in the USA "get it"?.......

Not true...in any way, shape of form. Maybe you get it, maybe I get it, maybe some others get it - but MOST people do not get it and will put off any change for as long as possible, even if it means mortgaging their own and others future.

I guess this is like WWI, where they said there would never be another World War because everyone "got it"....sorry, they did not - and still do not. 

It seems like one of our basic human failings is the inability to understand that everyone else does not see the world though the same eyes as each of us do.


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 20, 2008)

Everybody wants a car.


----------



## webbie (Aug 20, 2008)

And a house
And a couple TV's
and all appliances
and a boat
and a horse and trailer for it
and a pickup truck
and to fly places - cheap
and good road
and air conditioning
and computers
and in-store microwave ovens, custom kitchen deliveries........

(note: I'm still short the horse and boat).


----------



## velvetfoot (Aug 20, 2008)

And that's just the billion people in China.


----------



## MainePellethead (Aug 20, 2008)

TurboZ said:
			
		

> Pelosi closed congress for "vacation" because she didnt want a vote on drilling
> 
> I agree we should get 100% write off on any energy upgrade for our homes. Insualtion, heating systems etc should be on the table.
> 
> ...



The bozo's in congress might not be working......but  the boys at Cianbro Corp. in Maine  is....

Motiva hired Pittsfield-based Cianbro Corp. to build 53 refinery modules for the Motiva Port Arthur Refinery, which is in the middle of a $7 billion expansion that will make the Texas facility the largest crude oil processing plant in North America.

http://www.brewerme.org/Cianbro/cianbro_eastern_manufacturing_workers.htm

someone has to take the bull by the horns whether its oil, solar,nukes, etc. or al of the above and it  appears that Congress does NOT want to even touch this issue. Hats off to Cianbro and other Corp. that are forging forward for the good of jobs and the people. God knows the clowns in Washington arent.


----------



## MainePellethead (Aug 20, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> Not to be disagreeable but what do you mean by a viable storage medium? Are you saying there are no viable batterys for electric cars? Electric cars are exremely viable today, and are getting better all the time. Electric cars and trucks is the most important component in any plan to burn less oil. The average american drives 30 miles a day, and even a cheesy converted electric car with old fashioned lead acid batteries will go 50 miles. Modern lithium ion batteries will go 200 miles on a single charge.



Heard on the radio today that some group...not sure which rights group......they are being vocal about electric cars being a hazard to the visually  impaired(I put hearing accidently,oops, sorry  lol) because they make no noise. So they want to possibly have them making "some" kind of noise  lol.  I have an idea....put spoked rims on them and use a clothespin and baseball card.....lol.


----------



## MainePellethead (Aug 20, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> And a house
> And a couple TV's
> and all appliances
> and a boat
> ...



you must be in that 1% Craig....lol


----------



## Telco (Aug 20, 2008)

mbcijim - just do a search on nuclear fuel reprocessing, and it'll pull up links describing the process with detachment, US policy, and in pro and con terms.

Webmaster - Getting it and doing something about it are two different things.

I can do without the horse and trailer, cheap flying, and to be perfectly honest I could do without the computers.


----------



## MainePellethead (Aug 20, 2008)

Approaching 50 and i have never flown....eeeek....I must not be in the "in crowd"  lol.


----------



## Dune (Aug 20, 2008)

I would like to mention my opinion in regards to the pro-nuclear crowd. I honestly believe that if all other options are pursued to the fullest extent, that more nuclear plants would not be nessasary. By other options, I am refering to wind, all types of solar,tidal, hydroelectric, trap grease refinement, algae, etc. The town sewer in Barnstable Mass for example, seperates over 3000 gallons of trap grease per day, which could be readily gassified or converted to a diesel equivelent fuel. While it is true that the sun doen't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, the tide always flows. The bay of Fundy alone produces enough horsepower to power the eastern half of the entire continent of America.


----------



## tkirk22 (Aug 20, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> I would like to mention my opinion in regards to the pro-nuclear crowd. I honestly believe that if all other options are pursued to the fullest extent, that more nuclear plants would not be nessasary. By other options, I am refering to wind, all types of solar,tidal, hydroelectric, trap grease refinement, algae, etc. The town sewer in Barnstable Mass for example, seperates over 3000 gallons of trap grease per day, which could be readily gassified or converted to a diesel equivelent fuel. While it is true that the sun doen't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, the tide always flows. The bay of Fundy alone produces enough horsepower to power the eastern half of the entire continent of America.



And they probably pay a tidy sum to have that grease hauled off to be 'disposed of'. If they were smart, it would be used to heat the schools and run the school buses.


----------



## Turbozcs2003 (Aug 20, 2008)

Dunebilly said:
			
		

> I would like to mention my opinion in regards to the pro-nuclear crowd. I honestly believe that if all other options are pursued to the fullest extent, that more nuclear plants would not be nessasary. By other options, I am refering to wind, all types of solar,tidal, hydroelectric, trap grease refinement, algae, etc. The town sewer in Barnstable Mass for example, seperates over 3000 gallons of trap grease per day, which could be readily gassified or converted to a diesel equivelent fuel. While it is true that the sun doen't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, the tide always flows. The bay of Fundy alone produces enough horsepower to power the eastern half of the entire continent of America.




Sounds like a profitable business for you dunebilly, bring your diesel rig down for that low odor grease from the sewer system

How can you make these blanket statements, like could easliy be, should be etc  Stop drinking the kool aid. Most of these cant be scaled up at an economical cost.  Look at people here whining about their 70$ a month electric bill.  If the utilities went and added all these things willy nilly and the PUC double or triple their rates they would be screaming.

In Maine you can opt to buy "green" power at a higher rate but most people dont. Bottom line is the bottom line and people want lowest cost reliable power.


----------



## Dune (Aug 20, 2008)

Sorry, I thought that when I said "in my opinion", it would be clear that I was expressing my opinion. I was under the impression that I was still entitled to express my opinoin. Now lets adress your comments.  Actualy, the profitable part of trap grease for me is consulting for the PRIVATELY held company which is building the plant to produce diesel fuel. The plant we are designing is for a different town, and will process 10,000 gallons per day of raw product. Want to talk about blanket statements, how about yours, "most of these can't be scaled up", Says who? No really, what exactly are you basing that on? Certainly not the tidal generators being installed all over the world even as we speak. And not on the thousands of windmills already producing power or the thousands more being built, or the prototype being erected in the bay of Fundy(close to home for you) or the reseach being done on algae oil, or any fact that I can think of at all. Can you think of any facts that back up your statement?


----------



## Telco (Aug 21, 2008)

I'm not just pro-nuclear here, I'm all for using cleaner energy sources too.  One I'd like to see implemented is the plasma converter to generate electricity.  This is a neat little gadget that would solve three problems at once, the need for electricity, the need for motive fuel (ethanol for one) and the need for landfills.  And no, it won't solve all three completely, just put a dent into electrical and motive fuel needs.  It will eliminate the need for landfills though, as we'd just need a staging area for trash to go pending the burn.  

A plasma converter uses an electrical arc to turn any trash into glass, and produces more electricity than it takes to generate the arc.  Once the arc is generated, as long as it has trash feeding the machine it makes enough electricity to power itself and sell power to the local grid.  They are expecting to be able to generate 160MW of electricity from trash, while consuming 40MW of that power to keep the machine running.  

What's really nice about it is, the machine can accept anything man throws out, except nuclear waste.  Course, you never know, more research along these lines might actually turn up a way to dispose of nuke fuel with one of these machines.  And that anything includes just that, anything.  It can burn dirty diapers, chembio weapons, shotgun shells, mobsters, tires, used motor oil, Fluffy, paint, anything.  Yet another neat thing about this is, it also generates syngas that can be converted into liquid fuels including ethanol.  Amazing machine, lots of pluses with no apparent minuses to it.


----------



## webbie (Aug 30, 2008)

MainePellethead said:
			
		

> Approaching 50 and i have never flown....eeeek....I must not be in the "in crowd"  lol.



U gotta get out more....heck, don't you build jet engines?


----------

