Per year: Total energy use: 28.4 billion Megawatt-hours Total electricity use: 4.18 billion Megawatt-hours Total energy per barrel of oil: 17.3 billion barrels Total electricity per barrel of oil: 2.5 billion barrels Per day: Total energy per barrel: 47.4 million barrels Total electricity per barrel: 6.87 million barrels *One barrel of oil yields 1.64 Megawatt-hours of energy Of that, 85% was produced from coal, oil, or natural gas; the remaining 15% was mostly from nuclear, with contributions from renewable sources. (2007 numbers) Renewable vs. Hydrocarbon Energy EIA
The point is that renewable energy, while admirable, is going to come nowhere close to meeting the energy needs of the US. Hydroelectric is already capped. As the article stated, solar and wind can only be used when the weather favors it. You cannot efficiently store electricity for reuse later. Yes, there are batteries, but that would be a big battery, and they are DC only. The current US power system is AC. That is a problem. Also from the article: Another point would be it's just relevant to know how much energy America consumes. For the record, I never said anything about power. Power and energy are different. So, it would be rather hard to measure power in barrels. Since, the two are often used interchangeably, although wrong, here you go:
1) We need more nukes 2) Power is energy x time. Watts a measure of energy. KWH is a measure of power.
flywheels, capacitors, thermal storage(theres like fifty different techniques for thermal storage alone), hydrogen conversion, superconducting magnetic storage, compressed air, hydraulic accumulator, hydroelectric pumping. They all have advantages and disadvantages...the point is that batteries are not our only storage medium. For grid applications, almost all of these types are better than batteries (well, not capacitors, but they are better for power buffering).
Is this along the same lines as a hydrogen fuel cell? I've talked with a buddy numerous times about energy/power and he would always tell me that while hydrogen is the cleanest burning resource, it is extremely rare.
You don't think the US needs more nuclear power? Wouldn't that go a long way? The paragraph you quoted is in MWH, a measurement of power.
No...the hydrogen fuel cell is typically what is used to convert the hydrogen back into electricity. Converting water into hydrogen takes your electrical energy and makes it chemical, which can be stored and converted back into electrical energy on demand.
Yes, I do think it could. It's clean and affordable, as far as I know; I have heard once that the cost of converting the plutonium to be useable almost negates any gains made. The only problem is the spent fuel. Seems redundant to go from one "dirty" energy source to another. Right, thanks for pointing that out. That's why I said I forgot the "equivalent," BOE - barrel of oil equivalent. I'm sure you've seen that.
Does the amount of energy needed to break the hydrogen bond cancel out any gains? Or can it be done on a larger scale to make it more efficient? Is this what you're talking about? BlackLight I
Never said that we couldn't. What about the residual that is left over? There has to be some sort of waste after reprocessing. I imagine they are essentially re-injecting isotopes back into the fuel rods, where are they getting them? I was able to find this about recycling:
The problem is that on this planet, the vast majority of it has chemical bonds to something else, like oxygen. And to get it alone, you usually have to expend energy.
The reasons to go nuclear are varied, and I don't want to write a white paper. Let's put it this way: Uranium is cheap, it is available in such horrific hotbeds of terrorism as Australia, Canada, and Wyoming. There are advantages to having a little bit of radioactive stuff after 5 or so years, rather than constantly belching out smoke. Eh, let's face it - the "radioactivity" gives nuclear a bad rap, but it's probably the most shovel-ready option we have.
But the plants necessary to safely extract the energy are not. And they take a long time to construct. You want instant energy replacement? Ethanol/methanol. And no, I don't necessarily mean corn (tho, worldwide there is plenty enough arable land). Methanol can be made out of virtually any biomass. The local landfill could generate gasoline for a portion of the local demand. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAUmFjHxI1c"]YouTube - Robert Zubrin: Energy Victory and Winning the War on Terror[/ame] If you've got a lot of time... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLRuGUPkyh4"]YouTube - Authors@Google: Dr. Robert Zubrin[/ame] The idea that it costs more energy to make ethanol than it produces is hogwash - Brazil has been doing this for 30 years, and they export the stuff. Of course, this is just one tiny piece of the solution. Really, we need to reduce consumption. Current levels are unsustainable. And we need to replace current sources with renewable sources as much as possible.