The American Spectator : There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom

Feature

There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom

By William Tucker from the April 2009 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

The only way to make up for the relatively low density of solar flow is to use more land in gathering it. There is no Moore's Law waiting to improve the process. Solar cells, windmills, and other forms of solar flow may be made cheaper—which is where most of the research is going right now—but land requirements will never be reduced. Those requirements, when confronted, turn out to be staggering. In a 2007 essay that is becoming a classic, Jesse Ausubel, of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University, calculated the amount of land that would be required to equal the output from fossil fuels using so-called "renewable" energy. Running a 1,000-megawatt electrical station—the standard size—for example, would require 1,000 square miles of forest. A hydroelectric dam generating 1,000 MW usually backs up a reservoir of about 250 square miles. T. Boone Pickens's plan to generate 4,000 MW of electricity from wind in west Texas will cover around 1,200 square miles. In the December 2007 issue of Scientific American, three solar energy theorists presented a "grand plan for solar energy" that would involve powering the entire country by covering 30,000 square miles of Southwest desert with solar collectors.

No amount of technical ingenuity or venture capital flowing out of Silicon Valley is ever going to change these parameters. Cool Earth Solar, for example, a company in Livermore, California, has invented an eight-foot balloon whose surface acts as a magnifying glass to concentrate solar energy on a small photovoltaic cell at its center. This will cut down on the requirements for expensive solar cells. But it will not reduce the space required by the balloons. Bob Metcalfe, co-founder of the Ethernet, is heading GreenFuel Technologies, a Massachusetts company developing photosynthetic algae that will convert the carbon exhausts from a coal plant into biofuel. But the algae pools for a single 1,000-MW coal plant will cover 40 square miles.

Both fossil fuels and solar flows have their limitations. Fossil fuels can produce only so much energy from their chemical bonds. Solar flows can be increased only by covering more land. So is there any other source of energy that can surpass these limitations?

IT TURNS OUT THERE IS. We just haven't gone down far enough into the microcosm. If we go down one step further, we encounter the greatest storehouse of energy in the universe: the nucleus of the atom.

To understand the dimensions of the energy stored in the atomic nucleus, it is best to begin with Einstein's formula E = mc2. Almost everyone has heard of it (it is the title of one of Mariah Carey's recent albums), yet how many people understand exactly what it means?

Einstein's formula says that matter and energy are interchangeable. They form a continuum. Energy can be converted to matter and matter can be converted to energy. The important thing is the coefficient— the speed of light squared. That is a very, very large number, on the order of one quadrillion. What it says is that a very, very small amount of matter translates into a very, very large amount of energy.

These transformations take place at the atomic level, both within the electron shells and in the nucleus. It is the distribution of matter between the two that defines the difference. More than 99.9 percent of the mass of an atom is within its nucleus. That translates into vast stores of energy, beyond anything we encounter in the "chemical" reactions of the electron shell. If producing energy comes from the conversion of matter, there is only one logical place to look for large amounts of matter: in the nucleus of the atom. Over the course of the early 20th century, a generation of brilliant European scientists—Marie Curie, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard—gradually unlocked the secret of the vast quantities of potential energy in the nucleus of the atom. Then as World War II approached, many of these scientists migrated to America to help build the atomic bomb. Ever since, the idea of "nuclear power" has been fatefully intertwined with nuclear weapons.

A far better way to think of nuclear power, however, is as "terrestrial energy," because that is where we encounter it. As Einstein said to his fellow scientists when he signed the letter to President Roosevelt, "For the first time in history, mankind will be using energy not derived from the sun."

Terrestrial energy—"nuclear energy"—is derived from the breakdown of the uranium and thorium atoms, two of the three heaviest atoms. They are so large that they are unstable and therefore "radioactive." Radioactivity is a release of energy. When uranium and thorium break down in the earth's crust, they release enough energy to raise the earth's core temperature to 7,000 degrees Fahrenheit—hotter than the surface of the sun. Although no one has ever calculated the exact portion, anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of the earth's internal heat is believed to come from these two elements.

When we mine uranium or thorium and accelerate their breakdown in a controlled environment, we have what is called a "nuclear reactor." In doing this, we are simply borrowing terrestrial energy from nature—just as we borrow solar energy in the form of photovoltaics, hydroelectric dams, and fossil fuels.

The only difference is the energy density. You will recall that the breaking of a carbon-hydrogen bond in coal or oil produces 1 electron volt. The disintegration of the nucleus of a single uranium atom produces 200 million electron volts. This extraordinary concentration of matter means that vast amounts of energy can be generated from very small quantities of this natural resource.

For example, a 1,000-MW coal plant is fed by a 110-car "unit train" of coal cars arriving at the plant every 18 hours. (Such a unit train now leaves the Powder River Basin of Wyoming to distribute coal around the nation every six minutes. In 1999 it was every 25 minutes.) A 1,000-MW nuclear reactor, on the other hand, is supplied by a single tractor-trailer that arrives at the reactor with a new supply of fuel rods every 18 months.

This extraordinary concentration of energy occurs on the back end as well. The same 1,000-MW coal plant will release three million tons of carbon dioxide exhausts into the atmosphere every year, while the reactor's emissions are zero. The only "waste" is the highly radioactive fuel rods that— properly reprocessed—can produce even more energy. France, which has a complete nuclear cycle, gets 30 percent of its reactor fuel from spent fuel rods. All the remaining "waste" from 30 years of producing 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power is stored beneath the floor in a single room at the La Hague plant in Normandy.

So there is plenty of energy at the bottom. We just haven't realized where it is yet. The place to look for both for an abundant supply of energy and the answer to our environmental problems from generating energy is in the nucleus of the atom.

Page: < 12

Letter to the Editor

David Mathews| 4.24.09 @ 7:11AM

William Tucker is a shill for the nuclear industry. While he sings a pretty song about nuclear power he neglects to mention the lingering curse of radioactive pollution produced by the nuclear industry.

In response to his article, I say:

* No nuclear power.

And ...

* No coal power.

If humankind cannot survive without electricity our species will go extinct. Since humankind cannot survive without electricity, our species will certainly go extinct.

Addiction to electricity and technology has driven humankind on a dead-end path. Our civilization is dying and no amount of desperation will save it from collapse.

Let it go.

Appleby| 4.24.09 @ 7:13AM

What would be the use? The Obamination and his friends would simply nationalize your company, steal all your patents, put its friends in the Board to suck it dry, and cast it on the dung heap of history.

Better keep all that stuff to yourself until somebody changes the government.

TennesseeVolunteer| 4.24.09 @ 7:23AM

My company offers solar solutions to homeowners as part of a energy saving package for their homes. To date, we have had no homeowner buy a solar system because the cost benefit ration just isn't there.
If every existing home in America was refitted with the best insulation practices and we had nuclear power for our energy needs, americas need for power, not including vehicles, would drop in half

Pingback| 4.24.09 @ 7:39AM

There’s Plenty of Energy at the Bottom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…realized where it is yet. The place to look for both for an abundant supply of energy and the answer to our environmental problems from generating energy is in the nucleus of the atom. Read More Share and Enjoy: Related posts: Bad Policies Fuel Energy Crisis In the newly released of edition of Newsweek, Former Speaker... Will Larry Kissell Raise Energy Costs on North Carolinians During Hard…

SC Mike| 4.24.09 @ 7:50AM

David Mathews’ solution is that we rely on bicycles made of hemp for our transportation needs, but doing so would require a significant downsizing in the world’s population. While I’m sure that he is willing and able to assist in the necessary reductions with great enthusiasm, I think that it’s kindler and gentler to build nukes at breakneck pace to sate the population’s growing stationary energy needs. Moreover, over a short time excess nuke capacity could generate hydrogen, a medium suitable for fueling our mobile transportation needs.

So the contrast is simply that Mr. Mathews wants to drive humanity back to the caves and savannahs while more thoughtful folks seek to deploy the harnessed atom in a manner that engenders human prosperity. And he’s the progressive?

David Mathews| 4.24.09 @ 7:51AM

Hello Appleby,

* "What would be the use? The Obamination and his friends would simply nationalize your company, steal all your patents, put its friends in the Board to suck it dry, and cast it on the dung heap of history. "

Is bitter conservative loser crying? Does bitter conservative loser want a tissue?

Shall I give bitter conservative loser a George W. Bush doll to cling to in order to remember the good old days and pray to God for a return of ignorant incompetence to the White House?

David Mathews| 4.24.09 @ 7:57AM

Hello Mike,

* "David Mathews’ solution is that we rely on bicycles made of hemp for our transportation needs, but doing so would require a significant downsizing in the world’s population."

The human population will peak at approximately 9 billion and collapse in a manner similar to the housing bubble's collapse, except with much more horrific implications. That's just reality.

* " While I’m sure that he is willing and able to assist in the necessary reductions with great enthusiasm, I think that it’s kindler and gentler to build nukes at breakneck pace to sate the population’s growing stationary energy needs."

Humans don't live off electricity. The food and water problems will overwhelm humankind in the decades ahead and no amount of nuclear power will solve those problems.

* "Moreover, over a short time excess nuke capacity could generate hydrogen, a medium suitable for fueling our mobile transportation needs. "

Perhaps there is a nuclear powered perpetual motion machine, too. The moon might also be made of green choose, too.

* "So the contrast is simply that Mr. Mathews wants to drive humanity back to the caves and savannahs while more thoughtful folks seek to deploy the harnessed atom in a manner that engenders human prosperity. And he’s the progressive? "

Nuclear power isn't going to save civilization. Nuclear power is desperation ... sort of like the intensive care unit for Terry Schiavo.

Humankind will lose electricity and technology and if it is not possible for humankind to survive without these the species will go extinct. Technological civilization is a dead-end path.

R Martin| 4.24.09 @ 8:31AM

I don't know about our species going extinct, but there certainly is one member of it that humankind could do without. I am, of course, referring to that pompous git whose ubiquitous and boring posts of sputtering vitriolic nonsense pollute this website .

David Mathews| 4.24.09 @ 8:43AM

Oh my R Martin. Janeane Garafalo says you're a reacist. Oh and please enjoy death! Keith Olberman says it's going to got hotter outside and we're all going to die if we don't stop using electricity. Maybe I should turn off my computer? Let me see what Leg Tingler Matthews wants me to do.

David Mathews| 4.24.09 @ 8:45AM

All you dumb conservative! I can't wait till we're all dead so I can say, "Me and Algore told you so! Ha ha!"

David Mathews| 4.24.09 @ 8:47AM

We're all gonna die because it's gonna get hot and all this technology is using electricity and it makes it get warmer then you skin starts to melt and the there is no more technology and stuff and food and stuff and conservatives are dummies and stuff and then when it gets so hot we all die and stuff and when we all dead the is no more humans and then the world will be great!

cmd| 4.24.09 @ 9:01AM

Tucker's science is somewhat skewed, check the wikipedia entry on solar cells for more complete and up to date information on photovoltaics.

mike b| 4.24.09 @ 9:08AM

the problem with nuclear "waste" was created when Jimmy Carter decided that reprocessing nuclear fuel rods was not going to be allowed. Commercial fuel rods are only about 3% enriched uranium, while nukie sub reactor rods are considerably higher. France supplies about 70% of their power with nuclear, and reprocess the rods. It is, in simple terms, recovering the uranium from fuel rods that that has not been consumed and putting that in new rods. It is my understanding the total amount of French "waste" has a foot print of about 2000 sq. ft. The US nuclear industry has been paying the federal gov't for years to support the Yucca Mountain facility, while Congress (think Harry Reid) has been intentionally dragging their feet to get it finished. Start reprocessing the fuel, and the amount of waste would be miniscule in comparison to what it is today. As for Dave Mathews comments---he is fortunate to live in a country that has the 1st amendment that protects his right to express his opinion

Sick of David Mathews| 4.24.09 @ 9:15AM

Can we all PLEASE just stop responding to this disturbed shill for the mental health industry?

AAARRRUGH!!!!!!

JamesD| 4.24.09 @ 9:17AM

Speaking with absolutely no experience or education in the nuclear field, I would ask the question
"What would it take to add the output to the grid from all of the decommissioned nuclear powered Navy ships sitting idle in various places?"

Old Texican| 4.24.09 @ 9:35AM

Hello David Mathews
Taking on all comers are you? (smile)

Why don't you begin saving the earth by unplugging your computer and turning off your lights (grin)

wes| 4.24.09 @ 9:45AM

Libtard morons. True believers they are.
We are to emulate the great europeans in everything but that which has actually worked.
Germany is the model for wind and solar and guess what ? It is not the panacea that the left has promised. France, on the other hand, derives some 80% of it's electricity from Nuclear fuel. No problem. DM, your claims were made by many others since the '60's - dire predictions of impending doom and population crash. They have all been wrong - wrong then and wrong now.
Trust me if solar could be made to work efficiently, it would not require one government subsidy.

DaveS| 4.24.09 @ 10:01AM

Tucker got one thing kind of wrong, but he may have done so for reasons of simplicity: when uranium and thorium decay, they produce the energy he speaks of at the earth's core. When uranium (-233 or -235) fissions you get about 160 MeV in fission fragment kinetic energy with the rest is neutrons and gamma. The thorium is useful when bred to U-233. Other than that, the facts (Mr. Matthews) speak for themselves. God has created a pretty marvelous energy source - born solar and discovered terrestrial. Everything else pales or is pipe dream.

dcd| 4.24.09 @ 10:26AM

Government subsidies are the problem. Except for basic research the government should get out of the game; no direct or indirect subsidies for ethanol, solar, hydrocarbons, or nuclear. An industry should cover its own expenses, pay full market price for what it takes, and persuade the locals that it is an acceptable neighbor without the federal government's pocketbook or muscle.

Tim| 4.24.09 @ 10:29AM

A great, hopeful article on the state of nuclear reactor technology from Popular meachanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html?page=1

moron| 4.24.09 @ 11:45AM

Matthews says let it go. By Dave, it was great knowing you, and thanks for voluntarily removing yourself from co2 emissions!!! Or do you ask everyone else to let it go while you still consume?? Classic liberal.

James Erwin| 4.24.09 @ 11:56AM

"Why can't we all just get along." Nuke it.

Bill| 4.24.09 @ 12:04PM

Matthews.. another good morning laugh with a hot cup of coffee.... thanks for the entertainment.

Think First| 4.24.09 @ 12:34PM

I am wondering here if this doesn't scare the EW's, Environmental Wacko's, as much as attempting to actually use solar power? They are screaming about trashing the Mojave desert to try major wind and solar plants, they complain about endangering birds and migration patterns at existing wind plants in California and obviously the technology for safe nuclear is already here and has been.

Using the technology from the next generation reactors and producing a stable cost effective source of hydrogen power for vehicles, and we laugh at the world still using something quaint like oil for vehicles and coal for power.

With so many upsides, the only downside is the threat of EW's. It just provides further proof rational debate is non existent when it comes to the environment. It's not the environment any more, it's control as has been pointed out in many other articles.

Let's hope reason will at some point prevail if enough of US keep hammering away at politicians of both sides until they get the message.

jae| 4.24.09 @ 12:40PM

GREAT ARTICLE! If we could somehow force all the public to read it, it would change the world. Unfortunately, many (most?) would not (or could not) read it, if it was delivered to their doorstep. Especially liberals. :)

1Freeman| 4.24.09 @ 12:44PM

It's kinda becomming a sport reading the headlines wondering where the uneducated TROLL Mathews will strike. This liberal retard rants and screams the liberal line as a puppet pretending to be a knowledgable expert. Usually the Obama and Nuclear powere are sure bets.
LOL! Too funny!

Pingback| 4.24.09 @ 12:52PM

The American Spectator : There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom : Science and Techno links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…on the state of nuclear reactor technology from Popular meachanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html?page=1 … Read the rest here: The American Spectator : There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom Tags: april-2009, david, david-mathews, earth, energy, entertainment, environment, government, green, hugos-hollywood, new-articles, nuclear, obama, technology,…

Derek P| 4.24.09 @ 1:09PM

David Mathews: "Let it go. "

You first............

Big Leo| 4.24.09 @ 1:16PM

I see old Roots n' Berries, the great hunter gatherer is with us again. So tell me, Turok, since you believe civilization is going to collapse anyway, why would you care what kind of power we use to get there?

Fiat lux| 4.24.09 @ 1:44PM

We already use the most efficient and safe ‘terrestrial energy’…
“A liter of gasoline, for example, can produce 9.7 kilowatt- hours (kWh) of power—probably the densest form of chemical energy we will ever encounter.”
…oil. Petroleum and its derivatives natural gas and coal originate deep under the earth’s crust/upper mantle from iron oxide (earth has an iron core), calcium carbonate (marble) with a touch of water at high pressures and heat. (http://www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm) The sun and plant life has/had nothing to do with the creation of oil. The laws of thermodynamics prohibit low energy material (cold water/bio-mass) to magically become high energy material (hot water/petroleum).

Naval Architect| 4.24.09 @ 2:32PM

To JamesD:
The Navy has a program for decommissioning and recycling nuclear powered naval vessels, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-Submarine_recycling_program
The nuclear fuel contained in these reactors is removed and re-processed. The reactor compartments are then buried at Hanford, WA.

Fiat lux| 4.24.09 @ 2:43PM

The progression of high carbon fuels to low carbon fuels has been happening for the past 140 plus years. Hydrogen/Carbon ratios: Wood – 1/10, coal – 1/2, oil – 2/1, natural gas – 4/1

The future of energy follows this progression to a carbonless fuel. H20. Water. Hydrogen. Not the hydrogen cell. Hydrogen and oxygen gas.

The only problem stopping development of safe HHO systems is the fact that you can't control/constrain supplies (finacial/political power) on something that falls from the sky.

Stan Redmond| 4.24.09 @ 2:59PM

In reply to CMC:

While voltaics may get more effecient we CAN NOT control the amount of sunlight striking the earth. We CAN NOT control cloud cover. A solar voltaic may capture 100% of the sun's energy but at night or on a cloudy day, they are 100% useless. There is also no way to store that energy on a realistic scale.

Marc Jeric| 4.24.09 @ 3:25PM

Nuclear power was killed by Carter, our "nukelar engineer", when he placed a Sierra Club Lawyer and Massachussetts consumer advocate on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He also killed the Clinch River reprocessing plant. The three nuclear power accidents were the following: 1) Browns Ferry fire was caused by a union worker who left the flaming candle under the cable tray - you see, work rules called fior lunch break and he did not have time to finish utterly useless test of air flows between rooms dictated by the NRC; 2) Three Mile Island reactor meltdown (this should not be called an accident - no fly was hurt there, so it was only equipment failure); another useless test dictated by the NRC after only 8 weeks of operation of a brand new plant that had passed all the tests already; union worker from a subcontractor forgot to re-open the valves on the emergency cooling water pumps; when the pressure relief valve got stuck open and the reactor cooling water escaped, those pumps came on but hit those closed valves - you see, union work rules called off the workers at the time and so the valves stayed closed; 3) Chernobyl steam explosion (it was not a nuclear reaction!) dispersed nuclear material over the countryside. How come? Chernobyl design for 14 similar Soviet plants was one of the 14 American designs rejected for inherent safety faults; but it was one stolen by the Soviet spies Rosenbergs (was that their name - later executed) and passed to the Soviets; the reason it was rejected by the Americans was that at below the 20% power level the reactor became unstable with a positive reactivity factor (in other words tended to heat up uncontrollably); the Soviets used 14 reactors of that type to produce both electricity and bomb material but then had too many of them and wanted to pass some of them to electricity production only. For that purpose and in order to profit by western technology they submitted the Chernobyl plant to western inspection. That inspection criticized the Russian design for using ordinary marine diesels for emergency power (those diesels needed 2 minutes to produce 100% power while american special diesels took only 10 seconds); the Russians protested that it was not necessary since the inertia of the main turbine-generator upon shutdown will provide enough emergency power while their diesels are coming up. The IAEA inspectors said OK if the Russians could privide proof by a test. So the Russians waited for a time of low electricity demand in Kiev one Sunday night to perform that test. However the Kiev engineer told them - No shutdown! Communist Party Congress is dancing, drinking, celebrating long into the night! - and so the plant operators held the reactor under that fateful 20% rating for several hours - till 4 AM; as predicted by the Americans 40 years before, the reactor entered into uncotrollable reactivity state and caused steam explosion. Since the Russians saving money dispensed with the containment structure which would have kept the damage within it, the overheated reactor rods were carried by exploding steam into the atmosphere. This is way to long - I will leave it to the reader to form his own conclusions.

Pingback| 4.24.09 @ 3:59PM

The American Spectator : There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom | StorageSlot.Com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…allow us to miniaturize the generation of energy the way it has miniaturized the storage of information. Why? The answer is simple: energy and …. Read the original: The American Spectator : There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom Posted in Uncategorized | Post a Comment Name (required) E-mail (will not be published) (required) Website Pages About April 2009 M T W T F S S « Mar …

ron| 4.24.09 @ 5:30PM

dave matthews is a moron and an obvious hypocrite - like all left wing loons. Like all lefties, name calling and hyperbole pass for intelligence. Are you completely off the grid, moron? You use an internet that runs on an electrical grid. Your food is dependent on fossil fuels. I'm sure a hypocrite like you has no problem getting on an airplane, taking a bus or driving a car. Lead by example, stupid and turn off your electricity, get rid of your car and grow your on food and get lost.

George Bruce| 4.24.09 @ 6:03PM

Oh, don't pay any attention to David Mathews. He is just a shill for the subsidy sucking "green" energy ponzi scheme parasites. He is paid to do what he does by very rich and evil old men.

bernardo| 4.24.09 @ 6:14PM

I first thought the moderator should remove Matthews from this post, since, after all, the man seems to be advocating or at least salivating over the prospect of genocide of the entire human race, which includes many women and minorities. However, on second thought he serves a valuable purpose. Whenever you think the "greens" are all merely misguided idealists (as some of them really are), think of Matthews. Conservatives like to call the radical enviros watermelons, for green on the outside and red on the inside. However even that is too kind for the extreme wing of the movement. Marx did not want to destroy a majority of the human race or even to reduce it to prehistoric savagery. Many extremist greens want the latter, and quite a few are intrigued by the former. So laugh at Matthews and call him a moron if you like, but remember. He stands for something, and he is not alone.

Pingback| 4.24.09 @ 6:46PM

henley-major.com » The American Spectator : There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Energy has become the “next big thing” in the land of information technology, with entrepreneurs who made their fortunes in … Go here to read the rest: The American Spectator : There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom April 24th, 2009 | Tags: american, american-spectator, california, david-mathews, earth, energy, environment, government, internet, plenty, russians, silicon-valley,…

Dave Lincoln| 4.24.09 @ 10:44PM

Mr. Tucker,

I agree with you on you general principles, and I have before on your articles about energy. However, as an engineer, I see enough mistakes in your article to see you as an "innumerate journalist", and this tempts me to dismiss anything else you have to say.

The difference between energy and power is very important, Mr. Tucker. You confuse it a lot! Power is the rate of transfer of energy - the units are different, and when I read one instead of the other, it makes me lose respect for your writing.

Here are some mistakes that I see (you could easily have talked to a Mech. Engineer to get him to review your article before publication, and save me from all this writing):

1) "A liter of gasoline, for example, can produce 9.7 kilowatt- hours (kWh) of power..." NO! 9.7 kW-hr of ENERGY. OK, at that point, I figure, just a typo.

2) "Anthracite coal produces 9.4 kWh, liquid natural gas 7.2 kWh, methanol 4.6 kWh, and wood around .5–.9 kWh, depending on its moisture content." ??? huh? per what? Per liter?, but that can't apply to wood. Per mass, perhaps? Don't know, you seem very innumerate here, Mr. Tucker.

3) "Sunup to sundown, the sun's rays shed about 400 watts per square meter of ground in the United States". OK, obviously the solar incidence is varying through the day. So, do you mean total ENERGY? In that case, you probably meant 400 kWhr per day per sq-m. You could have said average of 35-50 or so W/sq-m during the day, to put it in terms of POWER. You've got it totally confusing.

4) New topic. You say the constant, c (speed of light) squared is "on the order of one quadrillion". One Quadrillion what's, Mr. Tucker? Good grief, give me some units, dude! Without units, number mean nothing. Why don't you just say 12 next time ( the speed of light square does = 12 in SOMEBODY's units). If you're gonna be all SI on us, use 9 x 10**16 m-sq/s-sq as your c**2, as that way you can deal with mass in kg, and energy in Joules (N-m, or kg-m-sq/s-sq) Yeah, you get a lot of freaking energy from the loss of a kg of matter, you betcha.

5) Aha, you corrected Earth's "crust" to Earth's "core", per previous comment. Very good.

OK, sorry, but these kind of mistakes bug me, but also will take away from your message (not to "people" like the perl-Dave-Matthews-script, or any lefty, as there is never much understanding anyway.) You are quite correct that these Silicon Valley types are quite idiotic when they think they have a better way. Many of these people are very good computer people, but none of them are real engineers, and that's what it takes to solve a physical problem. It reminds me of that geek Bezos from Amazon thinking he is somehow enlightened about reaching space. Stick to books, Jeff; that's your "space".

OK, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, Mr. Tucker. If you do reply, I will be glad to send you a way to reach me so you can get a quick edit next time - I am not saying this as snark - I would like to help.

Ralph Woods| 4.25.09 @ 12:01AM

In reply to Dave Lincoln, I think you are missing the point of the article by Mr. Tucker. He is simply trying to explain the order of magnitude of the energy sources available to mankind. As it is, probably less than 5% of the population could understand what he is writing about. Any type of math or physics is Greek to most people. As evidence I suggest you look to the "smartest" members of congress who calculated a person making $ 30,000.00 per year could buy a $ 400,000.00 house at 10% interest and actually pay the mortgage payments.

oceanside barbie| 4.25.09 @ 12:09AM

Mr. Matthews:

Let's put this into perspective: more people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than have died from commercial nuclear power here in the US.

Shyster| 4.25.09 @ 6:04AM

Even were his allegations correct(and, as usual, they're not)
Matthews offers no viable argument against Tucker's points. Small wonder
since Matthews is an ignoramus, par excellence.

It's necessary, though not agreeable, to respond
to a moron like Matthews precisely because there are
idiots that actually believe the claptrap he spews.

Matthews, care to elaborate on the "lingering curse of radioactive pollution produced by the nuclear industry."?
Where, exactly, does that "radioactive pollution" exist, aside from your wild imaginings?

Civilization has always been driven by technological advances, not Malthusian nonsense.

Frankly, David, you're well beyond "ignorant incompetence".

By the way, David, it's spelled, "racist", not "reacist".

In case you hadn't bothered to read the actual science, David,
there's no case for suggesting the world population will reach 9 billion anytime soon.
As civilization advances, the trend is toward diminished population, not more.
Your 9 billion estimates have no statistical basis. Of course, having a background in statistics, isn't one of your forte's.

Any survey of history would inform your fevered brain, that civilization has advanced in direct
proportion to it's reliance and utilization of energy.

It's obvious you're a fervent adherent of Paul Ehrlich, who has been
wrong about everything related to population, supply,etc...

Get a brain fellow...

Your remarks about hydrogen production reveal a similar ignorance of basic science.

Nuclear power is a simple solution to a complex problem. I can certainly
understand your inability to understand both science and common sense.
Nuclear power is desperation? No, your attempts to discredit it are signs of desperation and ignorance.

Contrary to your assertions(actually, idiot ramblings) technological
advances have always driven the advancement of civilization. There's
nothing "dead end" about it. The drivel you spew is the dead end to
civilization.

You actually listen to Keith Olberman? And you have the termerity
to call conservatives, dumb? A man who lies about attending an Ivy League
school who majored in communication at an agricultural college? And conservatives
are dumb?

By the way, idiot child, the earth cooled for thirty years while CO2 emmisions rose.
And incidentally, there's been no global warming in ten years despite
increases in CO2? Who's the idiot?

David, you're a certified idiot and ignoramus.

Check back when you actually have facts in support of your silly
arguments.

Final question: doesn't it bother you being an uneducated, ignorant
Bozo? Oh, I forgot, you worship another uneducated, ignorant Bozo, Al Gore.

(ever notice how Gore became a multi-millionaire selling carbon credits?)

Shyster| 4.25.09 @ 6:17AM

Dave Lincoln...
If errors cause you to ignore incontrovertible facts, you're not much of a scientist. Rather, unable to separate the wheat from the chaff, aren't we?

Ray| 4.25.09 @ 9:54AM

"Humans don't live off electricity."

Actually, we do. We live of the electricity our bodies generate for such things as muscle movement (try moving blood around without the muscle contractions of your heart, contractions powered AND regulated by electricity), we live off the electricity our neurons generate when we have a thought (have you EVER though about that?), and we live off the electricity our very cells generate in the mitochondria located in every cell in our body. Since electricity is so vital to our very life processes (as it is the most efficient way to transport energy, which is why life utilizes it), why should our cultures and societies use electricity as well? After all, the generation, distribution, and consumption of electricity is NATURAL. Ignoring this fact is what will cause out population to collapse.

BTW, I'm STILL waiting for the population collapse that was predicted 40 years ago, a prediction that claimed that the words couldn't sustain a human population of 3 billion. We're now at 6 billion and counting, so where's the Great Extinction?

Richard Baker| 4.25.09 @ 9:57AM

The thrust of the article is that the energy being searched for exists not where all the lefties say it must be but where it is. To the engineers who decry a certain unitless form of explanation: remember that most of the population doesn't even understand the broad basis for the use of the atom as a source of power due to a defective teaching of even high school science. Case in point, I taught science at a local Florida high school in 2000 to 9-10th graders and a student argued with me that electric cars would eliminate the need for coal/oil power plants. When I asked him how would the electric cars be re-charged, he said that you'd just plug them into a wall socket. When I further asked from where the power for the sockets was derived, he said POWER- and stopped in mid word as the light bulb went on. As I tried to explain Conservation of Energy, my class looked at me as if I was speaking of the secret of the universe. That is why the article is written the way it is.

Person of Choler| 4.25.09 @ 12:12PM

cmd: "check the wikipedia entry on solar cells for more complete and up to date information on photovoltaics. "

Get back to me when I can check a catalog for information these advanced photovoltaics.

Roy| 4.25.09 @ 3:29PM

Re:Lincoln: Some of what you said is reasonable but I think "400 watts per meter squared" is fair enough, implicitly assuming he means the average power.

As far as Mr. Tucker I am never sure what to think. He always spends a huge mass of his articles on a razzle dazzle of marginally relevant scientific facts. Granted greenies do this too; so if he were writing in a publication for the pseudosophisticated, or frankly ignorant, such as the NY Times, this would make a lot of sense. However I expect more sophisticated Spectator readers to understand that e=mc2 matters only as an extremely far off theoretical upper limit, ie, not much at all. What matters in actual practical practice is how much energy can be economically extracted, and Mr. Tucker spends extremely little of his time on this point.

Spectator readers are also sophisticated enough to know that if the greenie razzle dazzle were true, then the "renewables" would be economically efficient and would therefore not require government coercion to get people to adopt; so, except as a talking point to discuss with your less sophisticated friends who imagine the NY Times to be intelligent - I don't see the point in using up a lot of article space refuting it.

If nuclear power is the most efficient then what government coercion is preventing its adoption? That's the question I would like answered.

Dave Lincoln| 4.25.09 @ 4:49PM

"As it is, probably less than 5% of the population could understand what he is writing about. Any type of math or physics is Greek to most people. "

Damn, what are you Ralph, a frickin Barbie Doll? If you don't understand what Mr. Tucker is even writing about you should not be avoiding Math classs, much less voting for anyone in office.

Secondly, don't put our Congress idiots up as an example of smart people. Nobody ever said they were smart people - I think even the perl-script-David-Mathews might agree with me on this one, if it were programmed to do so.

(Oh, and that goes for Democrat senators too. Joining the KKK or driving one's car off a bridge is not rocket science, people; well, maybe for Ralph)

Dave Lincoln| 4.25.09 @ 4:50PM

Dang, what are you Ralph, a frickin Barbie Doll? If you don't understand what Mr. Tucker is even writing about you should not be avoiding Math classs, much less voting for anyone in office.

Dave Lincoln| 4.25.09 @ 5:31PM

Sorry for 2 posts - I think the server only updates every once in a while on weekends. Sorry, Ralph, I should not have made the last comment (about the rocket science). I read too fast, and I was not sure if you were saying you are part of the 95% or not. Maybe you are talking about the public in general, but I don't agree. If you said only 5% of "journalists" understood any math, I would believe that.

To Shyster. I think if you ignore errors you cannot have good science or engineering. I never said I was a scientist, BTW. I said engineer. You have to read each sentence, one at a time. I'm gonna count your writing as chaff, in the future, I guess.

"Re:Lincoln: Some of what you said is reasonable but I think "400 watts per meter squared" is fair enough, implicitly assuming he means the average power. " I'll give you that, Rod; not clear to me, but it could easily be what he means.

Thom| 4.25.09 @ 7:39PM

I’ve been a nuclear power advocate for over three decades. I know the pertinent facts of energy production by all the known commercial forms. As long as we have one political Party committed to “control” over people’s lives and a sizable minority or even majority buying into the doom and gloom of everything but the false promise of “solar and wind” we aren’t going to see a revised nuclear energy business. Consider we still have oil fired power plants and people still heat with oil 40 years after the price of a barrel of oil started to climb. There’s an economic reason for that that gets left out of the picture.

Many bill nuclear energy as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. How would that be by putting one of those Popular Mechanics/Science nuclear car engines in every car? No, of course not. We are just going to produce all our transportation needs (all private, most commercial and no air or shipping) via electric cars and trucks. While enough nuclear power stations could be produced to do that in the next say 30 years, there is no storage medium for that power even in sight. We have over 100 years of battery technology and the trend in that development is pretty constant. The best battery technology today capable of moving my 5 passenger 3000 lb car 500+ miles would weigh over 2000 lbs necessitating that said car be larger, stronger and 1000 lbs heavier just to hold that 2000 lb battery pack. The best example of this is the Tesla which is based on a 2000 lb Lotus two seater with a 900 lb battery pack to move it 220 miles. The recharge time even on 220 volts limits it to less than 300 miles a day. Not very practical for visiting Grand Ma with the kids, etc in tow.

Knowingly or not William has made the case there never will be a concentrated form of storage we can store all that cheap nuclear produced electricity for electric vehicles that have a useful range and don’t weigh over two tons just to hold the battery pack. Between storage capacity, weight and recharge time even on a 220 volt circuit electric cars will remain a niche market for the rest of my life for sure. I won’t even touch up the shear cost of said battery packs under the best of economics of scale. It is not going to happen for generations if ever.

As to the environment, I think the environmental movement has made it clear what it is primarily interested in is control over people’s lives and destroying capitalism. The environmental advantages of nuclear power are rather one sided in favor of it and it doesn’t even get honorable mentions among environmentalists. A lots going to have to happen to force those standing in the way of rational use of nuclear power to step aside. When the power don’t flow or they can’t afford to use it because of hidden taxes minds will start to change but for the short term its all about “control” and the consolidation of political power.

Ralph Woods| 4.26.09 @ 12:56AM

I actually considered going into nuclear engineering in the early 60's as I was a physics major in college and prettydamn good at it.. Glad I didn't as the industry made a complete disaster of it with all the fragmented approaches that were taken. You have to give the French credit for one thing they put a concentrated effort into their nuclear program and it has paid of handsomely for them. They now lead the world in technology and probably will build most of the new reactors that are being or will be built in countries all around the world except the USA.

mike| 4.26.09 @ 1:43AM

first of all, tucker was foolish in using estein theory of relativity as symbolic form, and wrote it like an inexpierenced child would. the correct formula as written is E= mc^2, this oversight is laughable. further more those coparimg other countries to America fail to mention their populations, france has significanly less individuals than the United States. that means what would work for them probably would not work for us. further more nuclear power is a renewable resource, it again requires a seperate fuel source that contrary to popular claims is not reclaimed through reprocessing- only 95% is meaning that eventually the rods will become useless. in addition, the plants are an accident wating to happen given the risks for nuclear meltdown, terrorist targetting, and the fact that nuclear power is one of the largest causes of outsourcing known to man. it is very hard to outsource green energy due to it's natural state. while nuclear energy is much more effienct than fossilfuels, it is not the great tool tucker makes it out to be.

Patriot| 4.26.09 @ 2:34AM

Is that like a Mexican?

Dick Tea| 4.26.09 @ 2:37AM

Three Mile Island was awesome! Let's go for another!

You guys remain at the forefront of bad ideas that everyone laughs at! Keep it up!

JP| 4.26.09 @ 10:35AM

Mike,
Green Energy is a fools errand. There isn't enough arable land on this green earth to fuel the US for one month. Ditto for solar and wind. Methinks Silicon Valley smells hundreds of billions in tax-payer subsidies.

Thom| 4.26.09 @ 11:21AM

Mike, what does population size have to do with French success at generating 70-80% of their electrical needs? I'm curious. "the plants are an accident wating to happen given the risks for nuclear meltdown, terrorist targetting," Did you get your knowledge of nuclear energy from the movie China Syndrome ? Have you ever been in a large scale chemical plant or a chemical weapons facility? If the reprocessing process is so ineffective as you suggest why do the French pour so much effort into it and why are they reprocessing nuclear warheads for the "fuel"? A bit more complicated than I think you understand.

Bill Woods| 4.26.09 @ 12:34PM

DaveS: "Tucker got one thing kind of wrong, but he may have done so for reasons of simplicity: when uranium and thorium decay, they produce the energy he speaks of at the earth's core."

To be nitpicky, mostly in the mantle, not the core.
http://www.physorg.com/news62952904.html

Dave Lincoln: '3) "Sunup to sundown, the sun's rays shed about 400 watts per square meter of ground in the United States". OK, obviously the solar incidence is varying through the day. So, do you mean total ENERGY? In that case, you probably meant 400 kWhr per day per sq-m. You could have said average of 35-50 or so W/sq-m during the day, to put it in terms of POWER. You've got it totally confusing.'

No, he meant an average of 400 W/m^2 (9.6 kWh/m^2 per day). Which is rounding up, but there's a big chunk of the SW US that receives more than 300 W/m^2 (7.2 kWh/m^2/day).
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_us_annual_may2004.jpg
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_csp_us_annual_may2004.jpg

Roy| 4.26.09 @ 1:13PM

Hmm, I think I missed something here. Only 95% of the fuel is recovered? That high? Wow.

And no, I don't think we should make decisions based on what is easy to outsource. If the point of an energy source is to provide useless, parasitic make-work jobs then I suggest we use the superior energy source and then just hand the money to the people who would otherwise have gotten the make-work jobs. We're better off- we have a superior energy source; they're better off - they get the money but don't have to work; everybody wins.

If anybody detected sarcasm - yeah it was there. There are very few groups I respect less than those who want the government not just to point guns at other people and force them to hand over money - but for the government to force others to pretend they are earning the money.

Scott Hoover| 4.26.09 @ 4:57PM

David Matthews, what you are doing on a computer, accessing the internet, posting messages on a website? Your addiction to electricity usage and technology is contributing to the destruction of our civilization. You might even have a light and the air conditioner or a fan on, too.

Dave Lincoln| 4.26.09 @ 5:32PM

Bill Woods, thanks for the clarification.

Mike: You are part of the innumerate 95 %. STFU.

jpdaly| 4.26.09 @ 8:17PM

Aren't we all lucky fools like Dave Matthews aren't necessary for our continued survival? Boy am I glad he is on the liberal side because I would seriously have to consider switching if he were a conservative. The guy can write. To bad he doesn't have anything intelligent to say.

Howard Ino| 4.26.09 @ 10:23PM

But then, how can they confiscate your property and tax you into serfdom?

Appleby| 4.27.09 @ 7:46AM

Mike, you may be the physics genius of the universe, but I tend to mistrust people who cannot spell, punctuate, paragraph, or use proper vocabulary in attempting to explain themselves to mere peons like me.

Could you get someone to proofread for you before you spew? Maybe your Mom could oblige when she brings your brunch down to the basement in a couple of hours.

PECB| 4.27.09 @ 12:05PM

First I wish to post a correction to a # in the article:

"Sunup to sundown, the sun's rays shed about 400 watts per square meter of ground in the United States."

Actually, the average is 1000 watts per square meter. (this comes from my own data from experiments in college in Illinois & from the data of other experimenters)

I'm an engineer, and from my perspective, ALL energy sources and storage techniques have their proper place/application. There is no one solution.

On a National scale, and for some private, but grand projects, we need nuclear power, period -- end of story. On smaller scales solar and wind are great. Solar is even good at a medium scale (towns up to 100,000 people), especially when it's not strictly PV, put utilizes various thermal utilizeations like solar stirling engines which allow for thermal storage to run the system when the sun don't shine (combines nicely with geothermal too!)

Anyway, we already have all the "solutions" to continue to run a civilized technological society, that is also "in tune with the environment" . . . to use a cliche, it's simply a matter of doing it.

Pingback| 4.27.09 @ 8:10PM

Inspired Bicycles - Danny MacAskill April 2009 « * dENSA links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…cAskill A… “, posted with vodpo dENSA will visit Whiskey Dick’s on April 29th Commentary on the theoretical limits to energy and emissions from the American Spector: There’s Plenty of Energy at the Bottom By William Tucker from the April 2009 issue. Link at: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/24/theres-plenty-of-energy-at-the Excerpts: The marvelous miniaturization embodied in…

Lynn H.| 4.27.09 @ 11:20PM

Don't forget the energy required to manufacture solar panels. Using current technology, it takes an average of 16 years to get to the point where a solar panel has generated as much electricity as was required to manufacture it. Assuming a lifespan of 20 years, that means the net energy gained is only 20% of what it produces.

Scientists are researching more efficient ways to make solar panels, but in the meantime they don't make much sense unless you live in a very sunny region.

Bill Woods| 4.28.09 @ 2:06AM

PECB: ' "Sunup to sundown, the sun's rays shed about 400 watts per square meter of ground in the United States."

Actually, the average is 1000 watts per square meter. '

No, 1000 W/m^2 is about the *maximum* you can get on the Earth's surface, reduced from the 1370 you can get above the Earth's atmosphere. The *average* is lower still, because half the Earth is on the night side, and the rest is tilted at various angles to the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant#Solar_constant

CMElec| 5.18.09 @ 10:58PM

The energy source that ushered in the 20th century is wholly inadequate to the tasks required of it in the 21st. That will soon become more clearly evident. The single reason for the existence of our highly technological society is energy; inexpensive and in quantity. Without it we will have to shoulder the plow along with animals pulling most of the load. That won't happen, trust me. It will be nukes, there is no other option as available or scalable. Put all of the arguments to rest and deal with what is real.

Pingback| 6.12.09 @ 6:57PM

How William Tucker Sees Renewables « ThoriumMSR links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Accesskey = s ThoriumMSR How William Tucker Sees Renewables Posted in New Posts by thoriummsr on June 12, 2009 William Tucker wrote an article for the American Spectator titled There’s Plenty of Energy at the Bottom Very good article. It appeals to our egos. This is the kind of buzz nuclear energy needs. The idea of demonstrating how venture capitalists are misguided by attempting to apply…

FreeleanSolar| 7.22.09 @ 3:16PM

The fact is that installing solar panels for your home or business can cut your electric bill to $0 today.

The typical American homeowner won't pay attention to the science, but they will pay attention to their monthly expenses. If a product can save them money, they will take advantage. In this case, take your monthly electric bill and multiply by 12 months, then again by 25 years to determine how much you will spend on traditional utility-generated electricity during the typical life of a solar panel system. Then depending on your energy needs, compare this to the $5,000 to $25,000 cost to install solar panels.

For example, if you spend $200 per month for electricity, then you will spend $81,979 over 25 years, including a low annual price inflation rate of 2.5%. No matter how you calculate it, you will save money with a $5,000 to $25,000 solar panel system. Some so-called experts will say the cost per kilo-watt (kW) for traditional utility energy is less than the cost per kW of solar. Remember, you can pay the utility for 25 years, with annual price increases, or you can pay 80% less with solar power.

If you are worried about the upfront cost for solar panels, there are many financing and leasing programs available to homeowners with good credit. Some loans are tax-deductible too.

If you want to do something about this today, then visit FreeCleanSolar.com to search a nationwide network of 500 local solar installers. You can also find information about state solar rebates, federal tax credits, solar financing and leasing, system costs and the benefits of going solar. The bottom line is that many homeowners and business owners can afford solar power today.

Pingback| 8.1.09 @ 10:31PM

Profits of the residential solar power systems - The Blog Planet links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…energy « BraveNewClimate.com debito.org » Blog Archive » Sunday Tangent: James Eriksson on the … Is the Nuclear Renaissance Fizzling? - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com The American Spectator : There's Plenty of Energy at the Bottom Exec Explains Why Nissan is Betting on Pure Electric Vehicles | GM … Digg it Add to del.icio.us Reddit Stumble 0 Comment Leave a Reply Name (required) Mail (will not…

Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 11:00PM

sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie

The American Spectator

Comments