The 1 and Only Solution to America's Energy Problem

worldnetdaily.com ^ | August 27, 2008 | Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D

[kellynla]

Energy. It's the stuff of which our world and universe are made. It is everything we can perceive and measure in the physical world. Beyond that physical world, we "see through a glass, darkly." Science, engineering and the industries that are based upon them deal solely with energy – its nature and its uses.

We utilize many forms of energy – gravitational energy, such as that in hydroelectric dams; kinetic energy, as stored in a flywheel or the wind; heat energy, as in a geothermal well; elastic energy, as in a rubber band; electrical energy, as carried in power lines; chemical energy, as in gasoline; radiant energy, as in sunshine; nuclear energy, as utilized by nuclear power plants; and mass energy, as material objects – mass – are just another form of energy with the quantity measured by E=mc2.

[kellynla]

Arthur Robinson is a research professor of chemistry, co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, and publisher of "Access to Energy" newsletter. Educated at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California at San Diego, Robinson served as a faculty member of UCSD until co-founding the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973. Beginning with their initial work together on general anesthesia and the structure of water at Caltech in 1961, Pauling and Robinson carried out published research on a wide variety of topics from nuclear physics to nutrition. Robinson's concern over the political manipulation of science led him to launch the Petition Project, a compilation of more than 31,000 scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.s – and more names arriving daily – rejecting the hypothesis of man-caused global warming and urging the government not to limit production of carbon dioxide, which enhances and is required for all life.

[Iron Munro]

[nikos1121]

This tyranny – this economic slavery – has been produced entirely by the elected democrats federal and state governments of the United States.

There fixed it.

[Righter-than-Rush]

I power my home with hydro power generated on my own land. No grid required.

[henkster]

This man is simply brilliant.

[RKV]

There’s a lot to like in the article and much truth. That said, do you want a nuke in your backyard and what do we do with the leftovers (nuke waste)? Just asking. We’ve done a lousy job with nuke waste so far, and well, you happen to know anywhere where the actively want nukes built (in the US)? Not saying let’s not build next generation nuke plants, just want to have answers for the naysayers ready beforehand.

[Wonder Warthog]

Excellent article. Well worth reading the whole thing.

[Phlyer]

There fixed it.

Sorry. I wish it were so. But this problem is not limited to 'elected democrats.' I'm afraid I can't even say that it's limited to elected democrats and RINOs, because the bulk of the Republican party is squarely on the side of government regulating anything that moves (and subsidizing the rest). It is only the 'extremists' who believe in the Constitution that provide a bulwark against socialist implosion, and while that should be the Republicans' identifying philosophy, I haven't seen it receive more than lip service for a long time.

Just look at who the Republicans are going to nominate for President.

Yes, I'm going to vote for McCain, because he's better than Obama. But he's well over into the regulate, litigate, and obstruct progress side, for all that he has recently claimed to see the light on taxes.

[gathersnomoss]

Nuke waste, in your back yard? Where do you live?

[scottinoc]

Agreed. Should be required reading for any responsible American wanting answers to the mess we’re in.

[RKV]

Bout a hundred miles from a nuke - Diablo Canyon to be specific. That said, I think nuke waste should stored where the people who use the power from the powerplant live. You get the benefits, you deal with all the costs and don’t dump that crap on folks who are desperate. I realize that there are reactor technologies which eat up nuke waste. My point is that until we get them working, we aren’t ready.

[Realism]

The only way the U.S. energy problem can be solved is to remove the obstacles that caused it. The taxation, regulation, litigation and tax subsidies that government has placed on the back of the American energy industry must be repealed. Free men with private capital in a free market will then be able to build the energy industry we need. Similar action should be taken for our other industries.

Kind of like repealing the US Constitution when you no longer understand its importance or the background of its creation.

[Blood of Tyrants]

What reason does government give for depriving us of nuclear power? The same reason that governments always give – fear. Fear that "terrorists" might seize a nuclear power plant – and do what? Turn off the power? Kill themselves by opening the reactor and trying to carry away its fuel rods? Blow it up with chemical explosives – virtually impossible with modern reactor containment facilities – scattering diluted radioactive material over a few hundred acres and probably harming no one except those hurt in the explosion?

Until recently, public tours were allowed of nuclear power plants. Ordinary Americans could see this wonderful technology. Now, U.S. government regulations prevent even Ph.D. students in nuclear engineering from entering these plants. Their given excuse? Fear! Government apparatchiks are busy turning our existing nuclear power plants into the equivalent of the mythical supernatural forbidden places that terrified ignorant savages. Nuclear technology is so much to be feared that ordinary people cannot even look upon it!

Yep, fear and envy are what the 'Rats always use to get elected and get their agenda passed. It never fails, every 2 years the 'Rats start trying to scare the elderly by telling them that the Republicans want to take away their social security and/or Medicare.

[TChris]

Kind of like repealing the US Constitution when you no longer understand its importance or the background of its creation.

No, it's not like that at all. Please don't be so condescending.

The importance, or lack thereof, and background of environmentalist obstructionism is hardly a mystery. The creators of most of it are still around to explain too.

[Paradox]

As it stands right now, Nuclear power is the only alternative that will allow us to maintain our standard of living. An extra bonus is that it is carbon neutral. Yeah, I know, GW hoax, hype, and all that, but that alone should be a HUGE selling point to the greenies. The fact that it isn't proves that their real interests lie elsewhere.

The risks associated with spent nuclear fuel have been grossly exaggerated by the greens.

[Phlyer]

. . . do you want a nuke in your backyard . . ?

Absolutely. Clean power with minimal tranmission losses. What's not to like?

In order to maintain power quality efficiently when people are turning on and off their air conditioners, etc. you need your primary power source to have a large 'reservoir' of capability so a private nuclear reactor in my back yard is not efficient. But a neighborhood one serving a few hundred homes (perhaps using a 'pebble reactor') would be the best thing we could do for electrical power (assuming it were of equal cost to other approaches).

. . .what do we do with the leftovers (nuke waste)?

Save it! We used to flare off gasoline, because we only wanted the kerosene and lower volatility parts of a barrel of oil. Some of the highest-producing gold mines in the US are the spoil piles from earlier gold mines, where the slag wasn't considered economically recoverable. Most of "waste" nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and used with excellent economy . . . if the politicians would let us. And the parts that are not reusable (today) should be saved so that when we figure out how to use it, we can get it back.

But if - and I don't believe this is true, but if - we can't ever use the waste, there are plenty of ways to get rid of it. The most creative I have seen is to drop it in a subduction zone and let it be carried down into the earth's mantle (and eventually the core) where it won't even amount to a drop in an incredibly huge bucket.

. . just want to have answers for the naysayers ready beforehand.

A worthy goal, but the problem is that you imply that they'd be willing to listen if we had good answers ready to go. That (unfortunately) is demonstrably false.

This problem is not really about energy production. As the article states, energy is freedom. This is about political power - the ultimate goal of the statists. For example: If you have the freedom (access to affordable energy) to drive where you want, any time you want, then you're not dependent on the state for transportation. So they limit your access to affordable energy in order to make you dependent on the state. All the arguments in the world on how to provide affordable energy - and the freedom that results - are negatives for your approach, not positives, when you're talking to statists.

[Carry_Okie]

That said, I think nuke waste should stored where the people who use the power from the powerplant live.

This post really takes the cake. It's akin to advocating locating a gas tank near an ignition source because of some sort of supposedly moral reason, where engineering considerations should take the primary position:

You put a power plant near customers to reduce line losses. You take the waste to where it is safest to reprocess it back into fuel. What remains you put in the safest possible place.

Your thinking reflects a profound ignorance of current nuclear technology. Nuclear reactors for electrical generation can now be made portable. Drop them off a 40' truck and when they're done, load them up and take them back to the plant for reprocessing.

[mvpel]

That said, do you want a nuke in your backyard and what do we do with the leftovers (nuke waste)?

Sure, I'll take a nuke in my back yard. Or my basement, or my garage... It'd be nice to not have to pay thousands of dollars a year for heat through the winter, I'd just take a steam tap off the reactor.

Toshiba and the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI (http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/)) are jointly developing a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that are designed to power large apartment buildings or small city sections. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.

A coal plant in my back yard, on the other hand, with a radioactive and toxic fly-ash pile next door, and immense coal trains rumbling past every day? An oil-fired plant emitting streams of neurotoxic mercury? A gas-fired plant emitting naturally-occurring radon and its decay products? A windmill dwarfing my house and the surrounding 100' trees, casting flickering shadows across my yard? No thanks.

As for what to do with the waste? Well, after you recycle the unused uranium and plutonium from the waste stream, you're left with a very small, very compact amount of waste that can be converted into glass blocks and stored for the few hundred years that it will remain dangerously radioactive.

[calex59]

hat said, do you want a nuke in your backyard and what do we do with the leftovers (nuke waste)? Just asking. We’ve done a lousy job with nuke waste so far, and well, you happen to know anywhere where the actively want nukes built (in the US)? Not saying let’s not build next generation nuke plants, just want to have answers for the naysayers ready beforehand.

I don't mind nukes in my backyard and nuke rods can be regenerated and used over. The only way to go with electricity are nukes and not only for energy, we need them for desalinization, something a lot of people fail to point out. We don't need to be short of water, what we need are nukes. Anyone who fights against them is either misinformed or has an agenda that includes NO energy.

Also, please point out the "poor" job we have done on Nuclear waste and how many people have been killed by it. The greens refuse to let us use the underground facilities we have available, put the blame where it belongs. Besides, as I have already pointed out nuke rods are reusable.

[Westbrook]

> what do we do with the leftovers (nuke waste)?

He answered that question in the article.

Breeder reactors, which are currently regulated out of existence, would allow “spent” fuel rods to be reprocessed and reused.