The Underdog Power Source

2001-10-24 04:25:00

Concerning the possibility of a battery that takes in more energy than it discharges, I agree that such claims are most likely to be flawed. If such a battery does exist then it would have to receive its energy from somewhere. There are some exotic possibilities so I make it a habit to "never say never."

Here's our current situation. We are very close to developing electrical motors and batteries which can be a clean economical alternative to the combustion engine running on petroleum (and highly dependent on foreign oil). This dream can indeed be realized if we were to have a clean source of additional electrical power. The generation of additional electrical power is indeed essential, for if the day comes that 50% of our vehicles are run on electricity this would require a great increase in the generation of power.

The question is -- where do we get that power?

Let us briefly review available sources:

Alternative power -- wind, solar, geothermal etc. All these combined only supply 2.4% of our electricity and show little prospect of supplying the great increase in need that we shall require.
Hydro Power. This is a very clean source, but dams can be sabotaged or naturally fail at the expense of many lives and billions of dollars. Unfortunately, even with this risk we are maxed out with this source in the United States. Hydro power currently supplies 8.3% of our power and this figure is not likely to go higher.
Natural Gas. This is a fairly clean source of power, though it does release CO2, a greenhouse gas. This source supplies 15.3% of our electrical power, and like the hydro-electric it is limited in supply and it is not practical to look at this as a source of the vast need we have for future electrical power.
Oil. This is the substance we are trying to get away from. Most of the oil used in this country is in our vehicles. We only derive 3.2% of our electricity from this source and this figure is not likely to go up.
Coal. This is our largest source of power, supplying a whopping 51.1% of the nation's electrical energy.

Coal could be used to increase our electrical supply, but the cost would be great.

Here are some facts about our coal plants:

The U.S. burns about 1,000,000,000 tons of coal a year.
In 1996 coal released 88% of the 19 million tons of sulfur dioxide emitted and over six million tons of oxides of nitrogen, both dreaded pollutants.
The use of coal results in yearly emissions of at up to 2,000 tons of mercury, lead, arsenic and other metals. Much of the mercury winds up in our oceans.
Coal ashes are about 180 times more radioactive than the level of radioactivity permissible for nuclear power plants and are not required to be buried as is waste from nuclear reactors and uranium mining.
Coal mining causes about 20,000 tons of radioactive uranium to be brought to the surface of the earth each year.
Coal burning plants add billions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year. This is the main gas accused of causing global warming.
Pollution from coal burning is estimated to cause up to 50,000 deaths a year in the U.S. alone.
It looks then like our prime source of electrical power - coal - is not a good bet for long term expansion of our power needs.

Let us see. What is left?

Nuclear Power. This supplies about 20% of the nation's needs and is perhaps the most controversial source of power of all.

But, is this controversy warranted?

Questions:

Are nuclear power plants dangerous? Why or why not?

Is there a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste?

Name three illusions circulating around nuclear power.

Djwahl Khul said that the release of nuclear energy is an initiation for matter itself. What do you suppose this means? Should we assist matter with its initiation?