How Clean Can We Get? Solar E-Bike Discussion...

[Beagle123]

About Nuclear:

All you need to know about nucleaar energy is that it takes 10,000 years for the waste to nutralize. Until then its RADIOACTIVE.

Sure its easy to say, "nuclear is great!" now because its only been around for 50 years. So now we only have 50 years worth of nuclear waste to watch over. How much waste will there be in 200 more years? And we have to baby-sit this stuff FOREVER, and its so toxic that nobody will agree to dispose of it in their state.

Also, we don't have the technology to make a container that lasts 10,000 years. So imagine thousands of rows and columns of pallets of steel drums accumulating, rusting, leaking underground somewhere.

And if it combines to certain concentrations it will explode.

So every time you run your toaster, you're making a little bit of radioactive materiaal that will have to be monitored for 10,000 years by the government. Sounds like a bad deal to me.

 

[Beagle123]

I've Considered Solar too...

I thought about solar, but I came to the conclusion that its better to put a panel on my house rather than on my scooter. A house has a great built-in battery--the grid. If you put the big heavy panels on your house, there will be no "down-time." You can pump electricity into the grid 100% of the time, then just charge your scooter off the grid.

Really its the best way to power your scooter with solar energy.

 

[Xase]

My two cents...

Focus on building an electric bike that is worth riding, then worry about the electricity afterwards.

Electricity for an electric bike is near zero compared to everything else we use. (my computer is probably now using nearly as much energy as my charger) So now is not the time to be focusing on where to get the electricity. If you are going to be focused on something make it be the bike or the batteries.

Those are the weakest areas right now.

Nuclear power is safe and clean and if we build more of them we will have all the power we need. Also, now with the recently acquired new law that allows the recycling nuclear fuel (since 2004 or so) we have a near infinite supply of fuel. (we used to send 90% of the fuel to nuclear dumps which was stupid)

So don't worry about electrical energy... with the right resolve (nuclear power) and a sprinkling of other stuff like solar and wind we will have enough.

Keep in mind that I’m in the market for a weak commercial production e-bike, like the new Schwinns that have a Protanium Mini Motor, 24v, 250 watts with a 10 AH battery. http://www.schwinnbike.com/products/intbikes_category.php?id=110
I'm not building a bike, but thanks for the $0.02.

Can I get a link to this nuclear recycling stuff so I can read up on it and a citation on the percentage that is recycled and the percentage that's still waste please. I'm a little bit skeptical on the "cleanliness" of nuclear.

 

[BiGH]

I've Considered Solar too...

I thought about solar, but I came to the conclusion that its better to put a panel on my house rather than on my scooter. A house has a great built-in battery--the grid. If you put the big heavy panels on your house, there will be no "down-time." You can pump electricity into the grid 100% of the time, then just charge your scooter off the grid.

Really its the best way to power your scooter with solar energy.

Thats kinda what i was saying in a round about way - i FULLY agree. plus the more people that do it the better off we ALL are

distributed solar+wind grid > isolated solar/wind generators >solar ebike > geothermal power / wind farms / solar pannels etc > nuclear > gas > coal ..

in my opinion!
LOL


More governments should give tax brakes to INDIVIDUALS investing in grid tie solar panels rather than big businesses building wind /solar farms that aren't located near where people actually USE the electricity (ie transmission loss)

 

[Xase]

What about a micro-windgen on the bike? :lol:

Or maybe I could wear the 48w/24v panel as a cape wired to the batteries! The wind would lift it up and I'd get maximum sun exposure!

 

[safe]

Some Nuclear Energy Education (for those interested)

The history is interesting. In the Jimmy Carter presidency there was a question about nuclear proliferation and how to stop it. Jimmy Carter signed a law that:

BANNED THE REPROCESSING OF NUCLEAR FUEL (and got most of the world to agree with him)

...the thinking was that if no one could reprocess fuel (refining it) then there would be no way to make bomb grade material. Bombs need 90% pure fuel in order to make them operable, but nuclear reactors get away with about 5%.

--------------> What no one considered.

The stupid thing about this idea was that then you had nuclear reactors that took 5% fuel and reduced it in use to maybe 4% and then threw it away as waste. So one could easily argue that:

"Jimmy Carter invented nuclear waste."

So recently Bush signed a law that overturned the Jimmy Carter law and now all that waste can be reprocessed and resold as fuel. (essentially eliminating the waste issue) Estimates suggest that you can reduce waste to less than 10% over the course of many recycling iterations. After a while it's like a battery and the fuel starts to get stuff in it that makes it now no good anymore and so you are better off getting fresh stuff.

So many people aren't aware that things have changed for the better...

 

[safe]

I'll add to this that Iran used the same argument in order to set up it's reprocessing plants. They decided (at least this is their claim) that they don't want nuclear waste and the best way to clean up the spent fuel is to reuse it. Obviously, their real reason is to build bombs, but that's how politics works... people use words like a weapon... and have no problem saying things that disguise their real intentions.

So the new law has benefited the "crazy Iranian mullahs" but they would have found some other excuse, I suspect, to hide their plans if this opportunity hadn't been there for them.

 

[Xase]

Please cite your sources for those of us interested.

 

[safe]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050808-6.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/energy/index.html

"To enable a bright future for nuclear power, both in the United States and around the world, the President’s 2007 Budget contains $250 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Under this partnership, America will work with nations like France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Russia that have advanced civilian nuclear energy programs. Together, we will develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors and new methods to recycle spent nuclear fuel. This will allow us to produce more energy, while dramatically reducing waste and eliminating many of the nuclear byproducts that could be used to make weapons."

I suppose the White House (.gov) is about as good of a source as you can get. (most likely to be public fact and not some internet gossip)

 

[xyster]

I suppose the White House (.gov) is about as good of a source as you can get. (most likely to be public fact and not some internet gossip)

The White House is a seminal source of accurate information, especially as it pertains to science? Some other flippin' planet you're livin' on...

 

[safe]

The White House is a seminal source of accurate information, especially as it pertains to science? Some other flippin' planet you're livin' on...

What I mean is that the actual documents in the actual law are most likely to be presented without revision. I've seen websites that refer to the law and then run on a bizarre tirade about all kinds of pet peeves that often make little sense. There are a lot of crazy people with politically biased websites that you have to take with a grain of salt. At least with the White House website you are getting the "originals". (source materials)

The "bottom line" is that ever since Jimmy Carter nuclear waste came into existance as a "problem". With the change in the law the "problem" goes away as recycling takes over to nearly end waste. (only a small fraction remains)

I first learned about the science side from the magazine Scientific American (I'm still a subscriber after all these years) and they are usually very hard on the president, but they were very happy with this law.

It's a huge change... a complete reversal of the nuclear waste issue as it once was known.

So power up your electric bike and let the electrical creation issue not stand in your way. It's the ability to "get around" that counts, the electricity is very cheap and not the central issue.

 

[Xase]

The White House is a seminal source of accurate information, especially as it pertains to science? Some other flippin' planet you're livin' on...

The "bottom line" is that ever since Jimmy Carter nuclear waste came into existance as a "problem". With the change in the law the "problem" goes away as recycling takes over to nearly end waste. (only a small fraction remains)

I'm especially interested in a citation for, & the exact number of, this "small fraction". Just how small is it? How much waste is still being produced and having to be disposed of in our environment?

So power up your electric bike and let the electrical creation issue not stand in your way. It's the ability to "get around" that counts, the electricity is very cheap and not the central issue.

Even if nuclear were 100% clean there are other polluting energy sources, such as coal, to be concerned about. Not to mention the fact that these sources are tied to being energy dependent & energy negative. I'm striving to become not just clean but energy independent & energy positive.

And add another to the xyster group of those of us who are skeptical about "facts" the US gov't spews.

 

[safe]

I'm especially interested in a citation for, & the exact number of, this "small fraction". Just how small is it? How much waste is still being produced and having to be disposed of in our environment?

There was a Scientific American article a long time ago about it. You could go to http://www.sciam.com and try to find it, they are very thorough. Basically after a while there is a buildup of an isotope that causes problems in the reaction and so the effectiveness of the fuel declines. As I said, it's a little like a battery that deteriorates, you can continue using it, but the energy is diminished. You can filter out most of this isotope and yet you still would end up having to discard some mixed uranium. Think of it this way:

The "old" technique used to take uranium at 4% concentration and use it for a short time (getting 1% of it's energy) and then they would throw it into a nuclear waste landfill. The "new" technique recycles almost all of the fuel and so for each recycle you might need to extract some small percentage (obviously this will depend on how efficient they are at it) and take that to the nuclear waste area and the remaining 95% or so gets reused. So you are constantly adding a small slice (5%) and removing a small slice (5%) in order to retain the same amount.

So it's 99% waste verses 5% waste... a big improvement.

And don't think it's government that thinks this stuff up. It was the scientists that demanded the government wake up and get their heads out of their "Jimmy Carter asses" and realize how stupid that old law really was...

 

[safe]

Two More Pennies...

The biggest advance we will see in the use of solar energy is in redesigning our homes so that they no longer need heating or air conditioning. (passive solar)

Solar panels will not save nearly as much as a "redesign" of our homes which use enormous amounts of energy. That's attacking the root of the problem first rather than goofing around with high tech that might not yield the best results.

http://enertia.com/Science/HowItWorks/tabid/68/Default.aspx

 

[Mark_A_W]

I agree 100% with you about Passive Solar house design.

ALL houses should be like this.


But nuclear waste is not so simple. Just as difficult is the low-level waste. From the concrete structures to the office chairs...

 

[TylerDurden]

Armed guard found asleep at nuke plant

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer
Mon Aug 27, 5:32 PM ET


WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. - A federal inspector found an armed guard asleep at a gate inside the Indian Point nuclear power plants but officials said Monday there was no security breach.

The inspector spent two minutes trying to rouse the unnamed guard Sunday afternoon before the guard "stood up and opened his eyes," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The five-year veteran was alone on the second of three security rings around the two plants in Buchanan, about 35 miles north of New York City, Sheehan said.

He said other security measures at the gate remained in operation during the guard's nap and tapes showed there was no breach, "but that doesn't make it any less serious."

Jim Steets, spokesman for Indian Point owner Entergy Nuclear, said the other measures included a palm-print reader and a badge scanner. The two would have had to match before the gate would open.

There was another security ring that would have had to be passed to reach critical areas, including the reactor and the spent-fuel pool, Sheehan said.

The guard was found sleeping during a "backshift" inspection — focused on night and weekend operations.

Sheehan said Entergy "needs to get to the bottom of this and make sure the staff knows this is unacceptable."

Steets said the guard, an Entergy employee, was placed on administrative leave pending tests for drugs and alcohol and a review. He said the guard carried a sidearm.

He said security guards are rotated from post to post during their 12-hour shifts — "in part to keep them attentive" — and the guard had worked two previous posts on Sunday. His shift began at 6 a.m.

Indian Point, on the Hudson River 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan, has attracted widespread criticism, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The problems included siren failures and leaks of radioactive water.

Officials and activists say its safety and security are questionable. Federal regulators have turned away attempts to have it shut down, however.

:lol:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070827/ap_on_re_us/indian_point_asleep

 

[Xase]

HAHAHA!!! Sounds like a Homer Simpson!

 

[Xase]

Two More Pennies...

The biggest advance we will see in the use of solar energy is in redesigning our homes so that they no longer need heating or air conditioning. (passive solar)

Solar panels will not save nearly as much as a "redesign" of our homes which use enormous amounts of energy. That's attacking the root of the problem first rather than goofing around with high tech that might not yield the best results.

I totally agree with using passive solar, but we don't have to do it at the expense of solar panels. We can use them together like the Earthships do to have completely independent, off the grid, environmentally friendly houses.

http://www.earthship.net/

These are the homes of future generations.

What's with your grudge against solar power? Do you own stock in nuclear companies or something?

 

[xyster]

What's with your grudge against solar power? Do you own stock in nuclear companies or something?

He's just another unwitting dupe of the political special interests, bought and paid for with corporate propaganda.

 

[safe]

What's with your grudge against solar power? Do you own stock in nuclear companies or something?

My observation about humanity is that the "common man" almost always latches onto the wrong idea all the way up until it fails then they bail out and shift the blame to the innocent and then quickly forget what they did and what happened and invent a plausible (but unreal) story to tell themselves to make them feel better.

"History rewrites itself until the story is a dream."

I'm just trying to short circuit the process and get people to "fast forward" to the practical side of solar (passive building design being the primary goal) and steer clear of unrealistic ideas.

The idea of a solar electric bike is a great example of people who dream of something that is not really a practical thing to do. There's no problem with having solar cells on your roof (they're expensive, but they work) and using that to add some extra power to your electric bike, but the central focus needs to be on the practical aspects of how to get off fossil fuels.

My goals would be:

1. Increase use of nuclear power now that recycling the fuel is legal. (the waste issue has become significantly less since the volume of waste has dropped by 90%)

2. Change the laws to require new homes to pass some "passive solar" design restriction so that no more than a certain lower limit is allowed to heat and cool it. (sort of like the standards for fuel economy... no more "gas guzzling" homes) It's too bad we couldn't have gotten this type of bill passed BEFORE this housing bubble came along, they won't be building many new houses for a decade or more. I know there are some laws already, but they need to get serious about full scale passive solar design so that in a typical year the house needs next to no heating or cooling.

3. Steer clear of ethanol unless they can switch out of corn and into some plant material that is higher yield. Right now ethanol is a "farm subsidy" that doesn't yield an energy profit. (it's very nearly a break even proposition and Scientific American has blasted the idea as a fraud) People don't realize it's a "scam" because the tv tells them it's a "good thing" by the people who profit from it

...I'm sure I could think of more, but that's a good start.

 

[Xase]

What's with your grudge against solar power? Do you own stock in nuclear companies or something?

My observation about humanity is that the "common man" almost always latches onto the wrong idea all the way up until it fails then they bail out and shift the blame to the innocent and then quickly forget what they did and what happened and invent a plausible (but unreal) story to tell themselves to make them feel better.

"History rewrites itself until the story is a dream."

Couldn’t that same logic be used to critique those in favor of nuclear energy?

I'm just trying to short circuit the process and get people to "fast forward" to the practical side of solar (passive building design being the primary goal) and steer clear of unrealistic ideas.

The idea of a solar electric bike is a great example of people who dream of something that is not really a practical thing to do. There's no problem with having solar cells on your roof (they're expensive, but they work) and using that to add some extra power to your electric bike, but the central focus needs to be on the practical aspects of how to get off fossil fuels.

I’m still not entirely convinced that this is an unpractical idea. Sure the suggestion to drape it over the pannier bags might have been naive. But like I said before, I live in a very sunny part of the world and I think a portable solar panel that folds up to fit in the bags can still be placed somewhere (yard, roof, etc.) to charge the bike batteries.

My goals would be:

1. Increase use of nuclear power now that recycling the fuel is legal. (the waste issue has become significantly less since the volume of waste has dropped by 90%)

2. Change the laws to require new homes to pass some "passive solar" design restriction so that no more than a certain lower limit is allowed to heat and cool it. (sort of like the standards for fuel economy... no more "gas guzzling" homes) It's too bad we couldn't have gotten this type of bill passed BEFORE this housing bubble came along, they won't be building many new houses for a decade or more. I know there are some laws already, but they need to get serious about full scale passive solar design so that in a typical year the house needs next to no heating or cooling.

I like idea number 2. We need to get strict on this stuff quick.

3. Steer clear of ethanol unless they can switch out of corn and into some plant material that is higher yield. Right now ethanol is a "farm subsidy" that doesn't yield an energy profit. (it's very nearly a break even proposition and Scientific American has blasted the idea as a fraud) People don't realize it's a "scam" because the tv tells them it's a "good thing" by the people who profit from it

I totally agree with this. Bush II is such an asshole for even suggesting using corn for fuel. Now he’s subsidizing unknown amounts of U.S. agribusiness corporations so that, under NAFTA, they can flood Mexico with heavily subsidized cheap U.S. corn that the Mexican farmers can’t compete with. Since maize is their staple crop, their economy falters, millions of farmers go out of business and either commit suicide or immigrate to the U.S. And to top it off, out of all the sources he could have chosen to subsidize for biofuel, he subsidizes the one that yields the least amount of gallons per acre! Reference chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel#Yields_of_common_crops Interestingly, according to this chart, hemp yields twice the gallons per acre!
Long story short, it is a scam and I agree with ya 100% here. It’s a way for him to line the pockets of his crony agribusiness campaign contributors.

Do you get your science news from any other source besides Scientific American? It might be helpful to read some peer reviewed journals in conjunction with the S.A. to make sure you’re getting a more accurate & complete picture. Also, I’d carefully look into who’s giving advertising dollars to the S.A. because that can also be a source of distortion. I’m sure, like most publications in the U.S., it’s advertiser sustained as opposed to reader sustained. Who’s interests are being looked out for then? The profits of an energy company, or the livelihood of the environment?

I see four major advantages with solar power over nuclear: 1. It’s cleaner. 2. It has the power to make the user energy independent. 3. It has the power to make the user energy positive (meaning they are a producer, rather than a consumer, of energy). 4. Solar panels can't melt down and put the lives of thousands of people, animals and the environment at risk (I know, I know, Chernobyl & Three Mile Island were old inferior plants BUT... accidents can and do happen, as proven by history). Sure they might cost more in the short run, but you will save on your electricity bills, and over time pay the panels off. Not to mention the fact that you won't be affected by blackouts/brownouts. The solar panel prices can’t stay this high forever. And you can’t put a price on a cleaner environment and independence. As long as nuclear power produces waste that must be disposed of in the environment and that doesn’t break down for thousands of years, I’m going to speak out against it and in favor of solar and other alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

[NickF23]

I'm especially interested in a citation for, & the exact number of, this "small fraction". Just how small is it? How much waste is still being produced and having to be disposed of in our environment?

We recycle some of our waste in the UK, one of the end products being called mixed oxide fuel or mox

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_oxide_fuel

My understanding is that you can only do this once, so you get bites of the uranium-235 apple. The waste from the second bite is still very radioactive but a little less than the first bite.

I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong coz I don't know very much about it) that the only way to use nuclear power as a long term sustainable resource is via fast breeder reactors and what's known as the 'plutonium economy'. It was once hoped that this would make electrically 'too cheap to meter' but turned out to more expensive than normal nuclear reactors using mined uranium and also gas, coal etc

There's quite a few other pages on this stuff on wiki, though I detect a slight pro nuclear bias there.

 

[safe]

I think (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong coz I don't know very much about it) that the only way to use nuclear power as a long term sustainable resource is via fast breeder reactors and what's known as the 'plutonium economy'.

You're on the right track.

Basically what happened in the nuclear industry is they developed a first generation set of power plants and then after the combination of Three Mile Island and Jimmy Carter (creating nuclear waste because of that old law) the whole industry was placed on hold because the belief was that burning fossil fuels was a better answer. At the time people believed that there was a virtually unlimited supply of oil and so since it was cheap and easy that's the path we went on. (I remember people talking about "oceans and oceans of oil that will never run out") No one even imagined climate change as a possible consquence of that decision.

Now here we are 30 years later and the entire world runs on oil and even the power plants are often burning coal or natural gas. Only something like 20% (I forget the actual value) of Americas energy is produced with nuclear power.

So what we're looking at now is a "second generation" of nuclear power that will take all the technological advances of the last 30 years (things like computers didn't exist back then) and apply it to things like better recycling techniques and safer powerplant operations. It's possible TODAY to create a nuclear power plant that can't melt down. Basically they can build these round spheres that are designed in such a way that if conditions are not right it shuts down at the level of the sphere itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

An interesting thought:

The "old" nuclear technology is a lot like Li Ion batteries... they work, but they can melt down if improperly used.

The "newest" nuclear technology is like LiFePO4 in that it can't meltdown because at the smallest level, the spheres, it protects itself.

The general public have a very shallow understanding of nuclear physics and are easily frightened by it. What most people don't know is that you get three times as much radiation as normal by just being at high altitude. Pilots and flight attendants get cancers at rates way above the national average and they know it's because of the excess radiation exposure. Radiation is a normal part of the universe, and often the places that demonstrate a higher risk are not what people expect. (like flying at high altitude)

The "common man" fears the wrong things most of the time and are easily manipulated by public opinion. The greatest irony of America is that we are "free", but often so willing to accept wild gossip to form opinion that our "freedom" can seem in question.

Can we (as Americans) really be free when we accept media manipulators so easily?

I've got to say that when it comes to emotional manipulation the left is clearly more eager to use that as their primary weapon. The left tends not to "think" but instead they "feel" and feelings are what get manipulated.

That's just my observation... (and I grew up in California and used to live and work in San Francisco, so I've been very intimate with the culture)

 

[Lowell]

It's amazing what people will be afraid of.

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest72.html

As for growing hemp, that's a 7 billion dollar economy here in BC. Of course none of it goes to biofuel :lol:

Indoor marijuana cultivation and consumption appears to be higher in BC than in the rest of Canada. Easton points out that the most striking difference is that only 13 percent of offenders in BC are actually charged while that number climbs to 60 percent for the rest of Canada. In addition, the penalties for conviction in BC are low: fifty-five percent of those convicted receive no jail time.

 

[Xase]

Also, now with the recently acquired new law that allows the recycling nuclear fuel (since 2004 or so) we have a near infinite supply of fuel. (we used to send 90% of the fuel to nuclear dumps which was stupid)

Apparently we still do dump it.

"Reprocessing of spent commercial-reactor nuclear fuel is currently not permitted in the United States due to the perceived danger of nuclear proliferation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle